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

Nearly Half of Americans Still Live With High Levels of Air Pollution, Posing Serious Health Risks, Report Finds

The most recent State of the Air report by the American Lung Association found that more than 150 million Americans breathe air with unhealthy levels of ozone or particle pollution

Nearly Half of Americans Still Live With High Levels of Air Pollution, Posing Serious Health Risks, Report Finds The most recent State of the Air report by the American Lung Association found that more than 150 million Americans breathe air with unhealthy levels of ozone or particle pollution Lillian Ali - Staff Contributor April 25, 2025 12:50 p.m. For 25 of the 26 years the American Lung Association has reported State of the Air, Los Angeles—pictured here in smog—has been declared the city with the worst ozone pollution in the United States. David Iliff via Wikimedia Commons under CC BY-SA 3.0 Since 2000, the American Lung Association has released an annual State of the Air report analyzing air quality data across the United States. This year’s report, released on Wednesday, found the highest number of people exposed to unhealthy levels of air pollution in a decade. According to the findings, 156 million Americans—or 46 percent of the U.S. population—live with levels of particle or ozone pollution that received a failing grade. “Both these types of pollution cause people to die,” Mary Rice, a pulmonologist at Harvard University, tells NPR’s Alejandra Borunda. “They shorten life expectancy and drive increases in asthma rates.” Particle pollution, also called soot pollution, is made up of minuscule solid and liquid particles that hang in the air. They’re often emitted by fuel combustion, like diesel- and gasoline-powered cars or the burning of wood. Ozone pollution occurs when polluting gases are hit by sunlight, leading to a reaction that forms ozone smog. Breathing in ozone can irritate your lungs, causing shortness of breath, coughing or asthma attacks. The 2025 State of the Air report, which analyzed air quality data from 2021 to 2023, found 25 million more people breathing polluted air compared to the 2024 report. The authors link this rise to climate change. “There’s definitely a worsening trend that’s driven largely by climate change,” Katherine Pruitt, the lead author of the report and national senior director for policy at the American Lung Association, tells USA Today’s Ignacio Calderon. “Every year seems to be a bit hotter globally, resulting in more extreme weather events, more droughts, more extreme heat and more wildfires.” Those wildfires produce the sooty particles that contribute to particulate pollution, while extreme heat creates more favorable conditions for ozone formation, producing smog. While climate change is contributing to heavy air pollution, it used to be much worse. Smog has covered cities like Los Angeles since the early 20th century. At one point, these “hellish clouds” of smog were so thick that, in the middle of World War II, residents thought the city was under attack. The Optimist Club of Highland Park, a neighborhood in northeast Los Angleles, wore gas masks at a 1954 banquet to highlight air pollution in the city. Los Angeles Daily News via Wikimedia Commons under CC-BY 4.0 The passage of the Clean Air Act and the creation of the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970 marked a turning point in air quality, empowering the government to regulate pollution and promote public health. Now, six key air pollutants have dropped by about 80 percent since the law’s passage, according to this year’s report. But some researchers see climate change as halting—or even reversing—this improvement. “Since the act passed, the air pollution has gone down overall,” Laura Kate Bender, an assistant vice president at the American Lung Association, tells CBS News’ Kiki Intarasuwan. “The challenge is that over the last few years, we’re starting to see it tick back up again, and that’s because of climate change, in part.” At the same time, federal action against climate change appears to be slowing. On March 12, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin announced significant rollbacks and re-evaluations, declaring it “the greatest day of deregulation our nation has seen.” Zeldin argued that his deregulation will drive “a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion.” Included in Zeldin’s push for deregulation is a re-evaluation of Biden-era air quality standards, including those for particulate pollution and greenhouse gases. The EPA provided a list of 31 regulations it plans to scale back or eliminate, including limits on air pollution, mercury emissions and vehicles. This week, the EPA sent termination notices to nearly 200 employees at the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights. “Unfortunately, we see that everything that makes our air quality better is at risk,” Kate Bender tells CBS News, citing the regulation rollbacks and cuts to staff and funding at the EPA. “If we see all those cuts become reality, it’s gonna have a real impact on people’s health by making the air they breathe dirtier.” Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

Nearly Half of Americans Breathe Unhealthy Air, New Report Finds

By I. Edwards HealthDay ReporterFRIDAY, April 25, 2025 (HealthDay News) —Breathing the air in nearly half of the United States could be putting...

FRIDAY, April 25, 2025 (HealthDay News) —Breathing the air in nearly half of the United States could be putting your health at risk.A new American Lung Association report shows that 156 million people live in areas with unhealthy air.The group’s annual "State of the Air" report found that smog and soot pollution are getting worse, not better. The report looked at air quality data from 2021 to 2023. It found that 25 million more people than in the group's last report were breathing "unhealthy levels of air pollution." That's more than in any other "State of the Air" report in the last decade, the association said.Since the Clean Air Act became law in 1970, air pollution has gone down overall, said Laura Kate Bender, an assistant vice president at the lung association, told CBS News."The challenge is that over the last few years, we're starting to see it tick back up again and that's because of climate change, in part," she said. "Climate change is making some of those conditions for wildfires and extreme heat that drive ozone pollution worse for a lot of the country."The city with the worst year-round and short-term particle pollution? Bakersfield, California, for the sixth year in a row.What's more, it was ranked third worst for high ozone days. In contrast, Casper, Wyoming, was listed as the cleanest city for year-round particle pollution, CBS News said.Here are the top 10 cities with the worst year-round particle pollution, according to the association:Bakersfield-Delano, Calif. Visalia, Calif. Fresno-Hanford-Corcoran, Calif. Eugene-Springfield, Ore. Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif. Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor, Mich. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, Calif. Houston-Pasadena, Texas Cleveland-Akron-Canton, Ohio Fairbanks-College, Ark. The report warned that pollution isn't just an issue in the west. Extreme heat and wildfires are spreading pollution across the country.In fact, smoke from Canada's wildfires in 2023 caused unhealthy air quality even in the eastern parts of the U.S., the report pointed out.Some of the findings came as a surprise, according to Kevin Stewart, the association’s environmental health director."I think we knew that the wildfire smoke would have an impact on air quality in the United States," he told CBS News. "I think we were surprised at the Lung Association by how strong the effect was, especially in the northeastern quadrant of the continental United States." Last month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it will roll back 31 environmental rules, including ones pertaining to vehicle emissions, CBS News reported.Bender said that puts decades of progress at risk."Unfortunately, we see that everything that makes our air quality better is at risk," she said. "The EPA is at risk — the agency that is protecting our health — through staff cuts, funding cuts. The regulations that have cleaned up our air over time are at risk of being cut. If we see all those cuts become reality, it's gonna have a real impact on people's health by making the air they breathe dirtier."Lee Zeldin, the EPA administrator, argued that, instead, the deregulation will drive "a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion to drive down cost of living for American families, unleash American energy, bring auto jobs back to the U.S. and more," according to CBS News."This air pollution is causing kids to have asthma attacks, making people who work outdoors sick and unable to work, and leading to low birth weight in babies," Kezia Ofosu Atta, the Lung Association’s advocacy director, told CBS News.The report also found that Black Americans are more likely to suffer serious health problems from air pollution.SOURCE: CBS News, April 23, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Umbilical Cord Could Contain Clues For Child's Future Health

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterFRIDAY, April 25, 2025 (HealthDay News) -- Doctors might be able to predict a newborn's long-term health...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterFRIDAY, April 25, 2025 (HealthDay News) -- Doctors might be able to predict a newborn's long-term health outlook, by analyzing their umbilical cord blood, a new study says.Genetic clues found in cord blood can offer early insight into which infants are at higher risk for health problems like diabetes, stroke and liver disease later in life, researchers will report at the upcoming Digestive Disease Week meeting in San Diego.“We’re seeing kids develop metabolic problems earlier and earlier, which puts them at higher risk for serious complications as adults,” lead researcher Dr. Ashley Jowell, a resident physician in internal medicine at Duke University Health System in Durham, N.C., said in a news release. “If we can identify that risk at birth, we may be able to prevent it.”For the study, researchers performed genetic analysis on the umbilical cord blood of 38 children enrolled in a long-term study based in North Carolina.The analysis looked for chemical patterns in infants’ DNA that switch genes on or off. When these switches occur in critical parts of DNA, their health effects can persist through fetal development and into later life.The research team compared these DNA changes to the kids’ health at ages 7 to 12, and identified multiple areas where genes in cord blood predicted health problems in childhood.For example, changes in a gene called TNS3 were linked to fatty liver, liver inflammation or damage, and excess belly fat as measured by waist-to-hip ratio, results show.Changes in other genes were connected to blood pressure, waist-to-hip ratio, and liver inflammation or damage, researchers said.“These epigenetic signals are laid down during embryonic development, potentially influenced by environmental factors such as nutrition or maternal health during pregnancy,” co-researcher Dr. Cynthia Moylan, an associate professor in the division of gastroenterology at Duke University Health System, said in a news release.Researchers noted that the sample size was small, but the links so powerful that these findings warrant further investigation. A larger follow-up study funded by the National Institutes of Health is underway.“If validated in larger studies, this could open the door to new screening tools and early interventions for at-risk children,” Moylan added.Jowell said disease may be preventable even with these markers."Just because you're born with these markers doesn't mean disease is inevitable," she said. "But knowing your risk earlier in life could help families and clinicians take proactive steps to support a child’s long-term health."Researchers are scheduled to present their findings May 4. Findings presented at medical meetings are considered preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.SOURCE: American Gastroenterological Association, news release, April 25, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Biden let California get creative with Medicaid spending. Trump is signaling that may end

California uses Medicaid to pay for a range of nontraditional health care services, including housing. The Trump administration wants to scale back those programs.

In summary California uses Medicaid to pay for a range of nontraditional health care services, including housing. The Trump administration wants to scale back those programs. In 2022, California made sweeping changes to its Medi-Cal program that reimagined what health care could look like for some of the state’s poorest and sickest residents by covering services from housing to healthy food. But the future of that program, known as CalAIM, could be at risk under the Trump administration.  In recent weeks, federal officials have signaled that support for creative uses of Medi-Cal funding is waning, particularly uses that California has invested in such as rent assistance and medically tailored meals. Medi-Cal is California’s name for Medicaid. The moves align with a narrower vision of Medicaid espoused by newly confirmed Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services head Dr. Mehmet Oz, who said during his swearing-in ceremony that Medicaid spending was crowding out spending on education and other services in states with the federal government “paying most of the bill.” “This one really bothers me. There are states who are using Medicaid — Medicaid dollars for people who are vulnerable — for services that are not medical,” Oz said. It also fits with broader GOP calls to slim down the federal government. Medicaid is under scrutiny as part of a GOP-led budget process in the House of Representatives that calls for $880 billion in cuts over 10 years to programs including Medicaid. “The messaging that we want to go back to the basics of Medicaid puts all of these waiver programs in jeopardy,” said John Baackes, former chief executive of L.A. Care, the state’s largest Medi-Cal health insurer. CalAIM is authorized under a federal waiver that allows states to experiment with their Medicaid programs to try to save money and improve health outcomes. Under the waiver, California added extra benefits for high-cost users to help with food insecurity, housing instability,  substance use and behavioral health challenges. Roughly half of all Medi-Cal spending can be attributed to 5% of high-cost users, according to state documents. But in March, the federal government rescinded guidelines supporting Medi-Cal spending for social services. It also sent states a letter in April indicating that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services would no longer approve a funding mechanism that helps support CalAIM, although that money will continue until 2026. Together, these moves should worry states that operate programs like CalAIM, said Kathy Hempstead, senior policy officer at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. “Under the Biden administration states were encouraged to experiment with things like that: To prescribe people prescriptions to get healthy food, to refer people to community-based services,” Hempstead said. “This administration is not receptive at all to … that vision of the Medicaid program.” In a press release, CMS said it is putting an end to spending that isn’t “directly tied to health care services.” “Mounting expenditures, such as covering housekeeping for individuals who are not eligible for Medicaid or high-speed internet for rural healthcare providers, distracts from the core mission of Medicaid, and in some instances, serves as an overly-creative financing mechanism to skirt state budget responsibilities,” the press release states. These signals from the federal government apply to future applications for Medicaid changes, and do not change California’s current programs or funding. The state’s CalAIM waiver expires at the end of 2026, and another similar waiver that supports California’s efforts to improve behavioral health care expires in 2029. According to a statement from the Department of Health Care Services, the agency that oversees Medi-Cal, all programs “remain federally approved and operational.” “We appreciate our Medi-Cal providers and community partners, and together we will push full steam ahead to transform our health system and improve health outcomes,” the department said. Physician assistant Brett Feldman checks his patient, Carla Bolen’s, blood pressure while in her encampment at the Figueroa St. Viaduct above Highway 110 in Elysian Valley Park in Los Angeles on Nov. 18, 2022. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local Paul Shafer, co-director of the Boston University Medicaid Policy Lab, said decades of public health research show that people have worse health outcomes that require more expensive treatment when their social needs aren’t met. “We’ve spent the last few decades in public health and health policy, arguing that so much of health and medical costs is driven by environmental factors — people’s living conditions, income, etc.” Shafer said. But, Shafer said, programs like CalAIM are relatively recent and the research hasn’t had enough time to show whether paying for non-traditional services saves money. For example, California’s street medicine doctors who take care of people who are homeless say that their patients often cycle in and out of the emergency room — the most expensive point of service in the health care system. They have no place to recover from medical procedures, no address to deliver medications, and the constant exposure to the elements takes years off of their lives, doctors say.  CalAIM gives them options to help their clients find housing.  The federal government’s decision not to fund programs like this in the future is a “step backward,” Shafer said.  “I think we can all read the tea leaves and say that that means they’re sort of unlikely to be renewed,” he said. Supported by the California Health Care Foundation (CHCF), which works to ensure that people have access to the care they need, when they need it, at a price they can afford. Visit www.chcf.org to learn more. more on california health care They live in California’s Republican districts. They feel betrayed by looming health care cuts March 11, 2025March 12, 2025 California has big plans for improving mental health. Medicaid cuts could upend them April 7, 2025April 7, 2025

Chattanooga Just Became North America's First National Park City. Here's What That Means

The designation was awarded by a London-based charity that aims to make cities more like national parks: "greener, healthier and wilder"

Chattanooga Just Became North America’s First National Park City. Here’s What That Means The designation was awarded by a London-based charity that aims to make cities more like national parks: “greener, healthier and wilder” Sarah Kuta - Daily Correspondent April 23, 2025 4:20 p.m. Chattanooga was once one of the most polluted cities in the country. Now, it's North America's first National Park City. larrybraunphotography.com via Getty Images Chattanooga has been named North America’s first National Park City, a designation that acknowledges the city’s abundant green spaces and commitment to environmental stewardship. The city in southeast Tennessee, home to roughly 190,000 residents, is now the third National Park City in the world, following behind London and Adelaide, Australia. The title comes from the National Park City Foundation, a London-based charity that envisions a better future by thinking of cities more like national parks. The movement is not connected to the National Park Service, the federal agency that manages America’s national parks, monuments, historic sites and other protected lands. “[National parks] are special places where we have a better relationship with nature, culture and heritage and can enjoy and develop ourselves,” according to the foundation. “Combining the long-term and large-scale vision of national parks with cities has the potential to shift our collective understanding of what and who a city is for.” In Chattanooga, city leaders have used the initiative to encourage residents to “think about Chattanooga as a city in a park, rather than a city with some parks in it,” says Tim Kelly, the mayor of Chattanooga, in a video announcing the designation. “The outdoors is our competitive advantage,” he adds. “It’s at the heart of our story of revitalization, and it’s at the core of our identity as Chattanoogans. We’ve always known how special Chattanooga’s connection to the outdoors is, and now it’s going to be recognized around the world.” Chattanooga has been working toward the designation for nearly two years, per a statement from the city. In late 2023, officials collected more than 5,600 signatures of support and created a National Park City charter. Then, they filed an application describing how Chattanooga met the nonprofit’s criteria—such as being “a place, vision and community that aims to be greener, healthier and wilder.” Last month, delegates from the foundation visited Chattanooga to experience it first-hand. They toured an urban farm, explored several parks and met with various community leaders, per NOOGAtoday’s Haley Bartlett. The foundation’s experts were impressed by Chattanooga’s “culture of outdoor activity,” its “unrivaled access to nature,” its commitment to “inclusive and sustainable development” and its food and agriculture scene, among other factors. “We saw first-hand the extraordinary breadth and depth of engagement with the Chattanooga National Park City vision informed by outstanding experts in design, ecology, culture and arts,” says Alison Barnes, a trustee of the foundation, in a statement. “National Park City status introduces a new chapter for a city with a long history of revitalization and renewal through connecting its unique landscape and the history of its people.” Chattanooga has come a long way since 1969, when the federal government declared it the worst city in the nation for particulate air pollution. Hazy skies were the norm back then, as factories and railroads spewed unregulated emissions into the air, according to the Chattanooga/Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Bureau. Air pollution was so bad that residents sometimes had to drive with their headlights on in the middle of the day. But the pollution was more than just an eyesore. It was also causing the city’s residents to become sick—and sometimes die—from diseases like tuberculosis. Eventually, voters approved aggressive new rules to reduce emissions. By 1989, Chattanooga’s air quality had improved so much that it met all federal health standards. Today, it’s a vibrant, outdoorsy city with more than 100 parks and more than 35 miles of trails—plus many more within a short drive. The once-neglected riverfront downtown has been revitalized, and Chattanooga has experienced steady population growth in recent years. What does the National Park City designation mean for the city’s future? That remains to be seen. But officials hope it will help guide policy decisions and “help city government and community partners prioritize connecting more people to the outdoors that have long defined our identity,” according to a statement from the Chattanooga Area Chamber. It will also encourage citizens and leaders to embrace “all aspects of outdoor life,” from forests and lakes to native plants, according to the chamber. Mark McKnight, who serves as the president and CEO of Chattanooga’s Reflection Riding Arboretum and Nature Center, hopes that the new status will “yield some really cool stuff that we can’t even imagine today.” “Hopefully, we’re having this conversation in ten years, and it’s like, ‘Oh, wow, we never knew we would get to there,’” he tells the Chattanooga Times Free Press’ Sam Still. Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

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.