Connect with us

Published

on

The debate around whether fluoride should be added to tap water is not new.

The practice, which is aimed at reducing tooth decay, has been ongoing for 60 years.

But since fluoride toothpaste became more widely available around the 1970s, more questions have been raised about whether adding it to the drinking supply is still necessary.

And with Donald Trump’s health secretary pick Robert F Kennedy Jr saying he would ban it, the issue has entered public debate yet again.

Despite RFK being well known for his outlandish views on public health, it seems the fluoridation issue isn’t one that can be totally dismissed.

One study in the US has linked fluoride to a lowering of children’s IQs, while another in the UK has questioned its overall effectiveness when added to water.

So what is fluoride, what do experts say – and what’s the story in the UK?

More on Health

What is fluoride and what does it do?

It’s a natural mineral found in rocks, which leaches into soil, rivers and lakes.

It helps dental health by strengthening the tooth enamel, making it more resistant to tooth decay, and also reduces the amount of acid the bacteria on your teeth produce, according to the Oral Health Foundation.

Fluoride is known to be particularly beneficial for children’s teeth, as past studies have suggested ingesting it during the period of tooth development makes the enamel more resistant to later acid attacks and subsequent development of tooth decay.

Dr Kunal Patel, who has been a private and NHS dentist for 15 years, told Sky News the benefit of fluoride is “drilled into” dental students, adding there are “scientifically proven benefits of having fluoride within your oral hygiene regime”.

Fluoride is essentially a passive way of protecting your teeth, he says.

“If you decide not to use fluoride then the technique of brushing your teeth, your flossing and other methods of cleaning have to be that much better,” he adds.

How do we get fluoride?

Almost all water contains some naturally occurring fluoride, but it’s normally not enough to prevent tooth decay.

Some areas do have water supplies where the amount of fluoride is naturally at a high level – a point that will be covered later.

We get trace amounts of fluoride from much of our food and drink, but brewed tea in particular proves a big source because tea plants take up fluoride from soil.

Most toothpastes now contain fluoride to give you extra protection from decay.

When did adding it to the water supply become a thing?

Many oral health experts believe adding fluoride to water – an act known as fluoridation – is the most effective way to widely reduce dental problems, particularly in underprivileged regions.

The practice began in 1945 in Grand Rapids, Michigan, after scientists noticed that people had less tooth decay in areas with naturally higher fluoride levels in the tap water.

It was first added to the water supply in England in 1964, when a pilot scheme was launched in Birmingham.

Over the years it’s been rolled out to about 75% of America’s population, compared to about 10% of England.

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates some 400 million people in 25 countries are getting artificially fluoridated water, while about 50 million have naturally occurring fluoride at the same level as the artificial schemes.

What is the ideal amount of fluoride in water?

The WHO recommends a maximum level of 1.5mg per litre.

In its guidelines, it says the level is aimed at creating a middle ground where tooth decay is minimised, but the risk of dental fluorosis and skeletal fluorosis is too.

Dental fluorosis is a common cosmetic condition caused by ingesting too much fluoride during tooth development, and can leave white flecks, spots or lines on teeth.

Skeletal fluorosis, a much rarer occurrence, is a chronic metabolic bone and joint disease caused by ingesting large amounts of fluoride.

The UK government aims for fluoride levels of 1mg per litre in drinking water, while the level of fluoride is kept at about 0.7mg per litre in the US.

Potential danger to children’s IQs

Fluoridation has been a contentious subject in the US, with more than 100 lawsuits over the years trying to get rid of it without success, according to the American Fluoridation Society, an advocacy group.

And the anti-fluoride group Fluoride Action Network says more than 150 towns and counties across the US have voted to keep fluoride out of public water systems or to stop adding it.

But the movement against it really gained momentum earlier this year when a US government report concluded that fluoride in drinking water at twice the recommended limit was linked with lower IQ in children.

The report, based on an analysis of previously published research, said it reached its conclusion “with moderate confidence”.

It cited a 2019 study, published in the well-respected journal JAMA Pediatrics, which found that IQ levels were slightly lower in three and four-year-old children whose mothers had higher measures of fluoride in their urine when they were pregnant.

A federal judge in California used the report to order the nation’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to strengthen its regulations on fluoridation in September, saying the current levels were posing an unreasonable risk to children.

The judge stressed that he was not concluding with certainty that fluoridated water endangered public health, but rather that it poses a risk.

Questions over fluoride’s effectiveness

In the UK, while the government is reviewing plans to raise fluoride levels for millions and roll it out into more areas of England, a major review has suggested fluoridation may only have a “modest” benefit.

Academics at Manchester, Dundee and Aberdeen universities compared 157 studies looking at the effect of fluoridation on the dental health of communities.

When the government began adding fluoride to tap water, it reduced the number of decayed, missing or filled teeth by two whole teeth on average among children with their baby teeth, researchers said.

However, once fluoride toothpaste became widely available, that number declined.

Now, it is equivalent to a reduction of a “quarter of a tooth” that is decayed, missing or filled, on average.

“Water fluoridation is only having a modest benefit on dental caries, and those benefits may take years to be realised,” said Professor Anne-Marie Glenny, of the University of Manchester, who co-authored the paper.

Could it actually be scrapped in the US?

Mr Kennedy Jr has claimed Mr Trump will push to remove fluoride from drinking water on his first day in office, referring to it as “industrial waste” in a statement on X.

He also claimed fluoride was associated with arthritis, bone fractures, bone cancer, neurodevelopmental disorders and thyroid disease.

While there have been studies regarding some of those claims, none of them have been conclusive.

After the comments, Mr Trump told Sky News’ US partner NBC News that while he had not spoken to his health secretary pick about trying to scrap fluoride yet, “it sounds OK to me. You know it’s possible”.

The decision on whether or not add fluoride to water is ultimately made by state and local health authorities, so Mr Trump’s government can only advise them to stop it.

‘It’s about risk vs benefit’

Stephen Peckham, professor of health policy at the University of Kent, previously led a study on fluoridation’s potential links to hypothyroidism – an underactive thyroid – and is now part of a research team investigating whether it could be causing IQ issues within the UK’s population.

He tells Sky News he accepts fluoride can be beneficial, but adds it is not a necessity, especially in water.

“We know that ingested fluoride is not an effective way of preventing tooth decay,” he says. “If you want to have fluoride, put it on your toothbrush and clean your teeth with it. It needs to be applied to the tooth and not swallowed.”

He says that while the benefit is limited, the children’s IQ study carried out in the US highlights a need for caution.

“What we do know is that ingesting fluoride does have a neurologic, neurotoxic effect. What’s less certain is at what level of fluoride that begins.

“The judge is saying, well, in that case, shouldn’t we be more careful? And limit in particular pregnant women’s access to fluoridated water or consumption of fluoridated water.

“And your maximum of fluoride depends on how much you drink. So if you drink more, you get more.”

It’s about the “balance of risk and benefit”, he says.

“But if there’s not much benefit, should you have any risk? The answer is no, you shouldn’t.”

‘Stick to the most deprived regions’

Dr Kunal Patel, who owns six private dental clinics in Surrey, including one for children only, says fluoridation was “great in a time where there was less education and less access to fluoride in toothpaste”.

He adds that before the IQ study came out, he would have been happy to see fluoride being added to any area in the UK because he’d have thought “anyone could benefit” without there being any negative effects.

Now, he says, he thinks it’s best to be “selective” and limit fluoridating water “to the areas that are suffering, where it’s more rural or more deprived”.

Read more:
Unhealthy food costing UK more than £260bn a year, report says
Cocoa or green tea can help you destress more than high-fat foods

He gives the North West as an example, saying he recently did a charity event there to promote dental health among young people, and it was “shocking” to see how many of them did not even own a toothbrush.

He says it’s a “good idea” to expand to similar areas of the UK where dental health is low – but thinks it would be an even better idea to provide toothpaste to schools in such areas and increase their education regarding how best to look after their teeth.

“I think education is the way forward more so than fluoridated water.”

A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson told Sky News: “The number one reason children aged six to 10 end up in hospital is to have their rotting teeth pulled out.

“Water fluoridation at levels permitted in this country is a safe and effective public health measure that reduces tooth decay.

“Prevention is always better than cure, and this government is committed to helping people stay healthy and keeping kids out of hospital.”

Is your water being fluoridated?

About 330,000 people live in areas of England with naturally occurring fluoride in drinking water, while around 5.8 million people get an artificial supply put in theirs.

It means some 10% of people in England live in areas where fluoride is added to the water, mainly in the West Midlands and the North East.

There is no fluoridation in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland.

Here is the full list of areas receiving artificial fluoridation in England, according to the British Fluoridation Society:

  • Cumbria – 120,000
  • Cheshire – 137,000
  • Tyneside – 643,000
  • Northumbria – 101,000
  • County Durham – 85,000
  • Humberside – 136,000
  • Lincolnshire – 250,000
  • Nottinghamshire – 287,000
  • Derbyshire – 43,000
  • Birmingham – 1,000,000
  • Solihull – 200,000
  • Coventry – 300,000
  • Sandwell – 300,000
  • Dudley – 305,000
  • Walsall – 253,000
  • Wolverhampton – 236,000
  • Staffordshire – 497,000
  • Shropshire – 22,000
  • Warwickshire – 431,000
  • Worcestershire – 253,000
  • Bedfordshire – 198,000

And here is the list of areas getting the “optimal” amount of fluoride naturally:

  • Hartlepool, County Durham – 89,000
  • Easington, County Durham – 47,000
  • Uttoxeter, Staffordshire – 13,000
  • Redbridge, London Borough – 180,000

Where else could fluoride be added to water?

The Conservative government introduced proposals to expand fluoridation schemes across the North East “because of the significant and long-standing inequalities in the region” when it comes to dental health.

A public consultation on the plans was launched in June and closed in July. Since Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government won the election, it has not been clear whether the plans are still being pursued.

These are the areas the government proposed extending the fluoride supply to:

  • Darlington
  • Durham
  • Gateshead
  • Hartlepool
  • Middlesbrough
  • Newcastle
  • Northumberland
  • North Tyneside
  • Redcar and Cleveland
  • South Tyneside
  • Stockton
  • Sunderland

Continue Reading

UK

Supreme Court decision on definition of ‘woman’ has immediate real-world consequences

Published

on

By

Supreme Court decision on definition of 'woman' has immediate real-world consequences

For years there has been a toxic, emotion-driven debate over gender and sex in this country. Today came clarity.

This was the legal crescendo in a saga that has rolled through the courts for more than half a decade.

It impacts half of the population in England, Scotland and Wales.

Five judges at the highest civil court in the land were unanimous: the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex.

It essentially means holders of gender recognition certificates are not women in the eyes of the law.

Follow live: Judges rule on definition of ‘woman’

Susan Smith and Marion Calder toast, as the Supreme Court rules on an appeal by For Women Scotland about whether a person with a full gender recognition certificate which recognises that their gender is female is a woman under British equality laws, outside the Supreme Court in London, Britain, April 16, 2025. REUTERS/Maja Smiejkowska.
Image:
Susan Smith and Marion Calder, directors of For Women Scotland, toast the ruling outside the Supreme Court. Pic: PA

Without getting bogged down in the legal technicalities, this whole case centred on two pieces of Westminster legitimation, meaning the Equality Act 2010 and the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

More on Scotland

Those with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) have lived for the last 20 years on the basis that the document they possess changes their sex for “all purposes”.

Later anti-discrimination laws, the Equality Act, stated trans people could be excluded from women-only spaces in some circumstances.

Women’s rights campaigners took the case to court to seek clarity after the Scottish government tried to include trans women in quotas for gender balance on public sector boards.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Lord Hodge delivering the ruling

This definitive decision today in London has immediate real-world consequences.

Judges were clear this wasn’t a victory for either side, as trans people will still be protected against discrimination.

But trans leaders say this calls into question their very identity – and to say they are hugely disappointed is an understatement.

One trans woman told me she was “gutted” and that this was an “attack” on her rights.

Campaigners celebrate outside the Supreme Court in London after terms "woman" and "sex" in the Equality Act refer to a biological woman and biological sex, the Supreme Court has ruled. Picture date: Wednesday April 16, 2025.
Image:
Pic: PA

Campaign group For Women Scotland gathered in Edinburgh to watch a live stream of the proceedings and claimed victory. There were tears and cheers as they watched the judges deliver their judgment.

They say this gives absolute clarity about who can enter single-sex spaces like sports clubs, hospital wards and prisons across Britain.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Campaigners in Edinburgh celebrating the ruling

Sir Keir Starmer’s government issued a statement saying this brings “confidence” and that they remain fully in favour of single-sex spaces.

John Swinney, Scotland’s first minister, had a more muted reaction, simply saying his government “accepts” the ruling.

In 2022, the SNP government under Nicola Sturgeon passed laws making it easier for people to change their gender. It was ultimately blocked by the UK government and has been sitting on a shelf getting dusty ever since.

Since coming to power a year ago, Mr Swinney has tried to distance himself from the gender politics of the past few years given how much it bogged down his predecessors.

There was an excruciating exchange with journalists last year when he was asked whether a man can get pregnant. He delivered a blunt “no” in response despite his lawyers arguing almost the opposite in court.

There was the row over the double rapist being housed in a women’s prison and an employment tribunal is currently hearing the case of the nurse who complained about getting changed in front of a transgender doctor.

With a Holyrood election looming next year, it is completely conceivable that any suggestion of resurrecting Scotland’s controversial gender reforms is over in light of today’s court decision.

Mr Swinney won’t be taking questions today, I’m told, but it will be top of the list for his next appearance.

Continue Reading

UK

Sentence of Luton triple killer Nicholas Prosper, who murdered his family, referred to Court of Appeal

Published

on

By

Sentence of Luton triple killer Nicholas Prosper, who murdered his family, referred to Court of Appeal

The sentence of triple murderer Nicholas Prosper, who killed his family and was planning a school shooting in Luton, has been referred to the Court of Appeal.

The referral has been made under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme, the Attorney General’s Office said on Wednesday.

Prosper, 19, pleaded guilty to the murders of his mother, Juliana Falcon, 48, and his siblings, Kyle Prosper, 16, and 13-year-old Giselle Prosper, at Luton Crown Court in February.

Giselle Prosper (left), Juliana Falcon (centre), Kyle Prosper (right) found dead in a flat in Luton, Leabank, on Friday 13 September 2024. Pic: family pics issued via Bedfordshire police
Image:
(L-R) Giselle Prosper, Juliana Falcon, and Kyle Prosper were found dead in their flat in Luton in September. Pic: Bedfordshire Police

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Witness calls 999 after triple murder

Their bodies were found at their flat in the town in September last year.

He was sentenced to 49 years in prison in March.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Prosper sentenced to minimum 49 years

Passing sentence, High Court judge Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb told Luton Crown Court that her duty to the public was met with the 49-year minimum term, rather than using “the sentence of last resort” and jailing him for the rest of his life.

Prosper, 19, who craved notoriety, planned to carry out a mass shooting at St Joseph’s Catholic Primary School, where he and his siblings had been pupils, he admitted to police.

Read more:
How mother of triple killer foiled her son’s school shooting plot

 Luton triple murderer pretends wood plank is gun
Image:
Luton triple murderer pretends wood plank is gun

Nicholas Prosper seen buying a weapon on CCTV
Image:
Nicholas Prosper seen buying a weapon on CCTV. Pic: Bedfordshire Police

The Solicitor General has referred Prosper’s sentence to the Court of Appeal, where “it will be argued that Prosper ought to have been given a whole life order,” a spokesman for the Attorney General’s Office said.

Defendants aged 18 to 20 have been liable to receive whole-life orders in exceptional circumstances since rules were changed in 2022.

But none of the orders imposed since then have been on criminals in that age bracket.

The judge said that for defendants over the age of 21, whole-life orders can be considered in cases involving two or more murders with a significant degree of premeditation or planning, or where one child is killed with similar pre-planning.

Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb said: “The court may arrive at a whole-life order in the case of an 18 to 20-year-old only if it considers that the seriousness of the combination of offences is exceptionally high, even by the standard of offences which would normally result in a whole-life order.”

Nicholas Prosper walking to the school on the morning of his planned attack. Pic: Bedfordshire Police
Image:
Nicholas Prosper walking to the school on the morning of his planned attack. Pic: Bedfordshire Police

Prosper obtained the shotgun by deception. Pic: Bedfordshire Police
Image:
Prosper obtained the shotgun by deception. Pic: Bedfordshire Police

She pointed to a joint submission of counsel that the lengthy finite term she imposed was severe enough because his case was not “of the utmost gravity where the sentence of last resort must be imposed on an offender who was 18 at the time and is 19 today”.

The risk he posed to the public was met with a life sentence, she said.

Justice Cheema-Grubb told the court she would not impose a whole-life order because Prosper was stopped from carrying out the school shooting, having murdered his family earlier than he intended after his mother woke up.

He also pleaded guilty as soon as the charges were put to him after psychiatric reports had been completed, and he was 18 at the time of his crimes, which is at the lowest end of the age bracket for whole-life terms.

The Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme allows any member of the public to ask for certain Crown Court sentences to be reviewed, and if necessary, the case will be referred to the Court of Appeal.

Police officers finding a shotgun belonging to Nicholas Prosper.
Pic:Bedfordshire Police /PA
Image:
Police officers finding a shotgun belonging to Nicholas Prosper.
Pic:Bedfordshire Police /PA

Conservative shadow justice minister Dr Kieran Mullan, who referred the sentence to the Attorney General’s Office under the scheme on the day Prosper was jailed, said at the time that not handing down a whole-life sentence “makes a mockery of the justice system and is an insult to the victims”.

Read more from Sky News:
Tommy Robinson loses appeal
Hackman bodycam footage released

Ex-world champion accused of child abuse

At his trial, jurors heard Prosper, who was obsessed with violence and mass shootings, wanted to be known as “the world’s most famous school shooter of the 21st century”.

Police believe he killed his family when his mother confronted him after finding a shotgun he had bought using a fake certificate.

His scheme was eventually foiled by officers who spotted him in the street immediately after the murders and arrested him.

The loaded shotgun was found hidden in bushes nearby, along with more than 30 cartridges.

Continue Reading

UK

Family of man who committed murder after escaping from mental health unit say they were ‘failed’ by NHS trust

Published

on

By

Family of man who committed murder after escaping from mental health unit say they were 'failed' by NHS trust

The family of a man who committed murder during an escape from a secure mental health unit have told Sky News they were “failed” by the trust that was meant to be caring for him.

Joshua Carroll is currently waiting to be sentenced for the murder of Headley Thomas, known as Barry, after beating him to death in a park in Trafford, Manchester, in September 2022.

At the time of the attack, Joshua was in the care of Greater Manchester Mental Health Trust (GMMH). He was being treated as an inpatient at Park House, a unit which has now closed down.

Joshua’s mum and sister say he escaped from the unit 21 times – and they repeatedly complained to the trust and asked for help.

Headley Barry Thomas
Image:
Headley Thomas, who was known as Barry

Leanne Carroll, Joshua’s sister, told Sky News: “The night it happened, Joshua had come to my house. And it was just a normal ‘oh Joshua has escaped from hospital again’. Nothing appeared any different.”

She says they didn’t find out about what had happened until Joshua was arrested weeks later – and “everything fell apart from there”.

Julie and Leanne Carroll
Image:
Julie and Leanne Carroll

“My heart broke,” said Joshua’s mum, Julie Carroll. “It’s just a horrible, horrible situation.”

More on Manchester

Joshua had been diagnosed with conditions including schizoaffective disorder, and had been in and out of inpatient care for around 15 years, his family said.

They showed me more than 20 pages of complaints and responses from GMMH about his repeated escapes, dating back eight years before the murder.

After Joshua’s fourth escape from Park House, his family asked for him to be moved to another unit, saying they were concerned about security.

This didn’t happen, with the trust citing capacity issues. His family complained once again about his escapes just five weeks before the murder, in August 2022.

“We are very, very angry and disappointed,” said Julie. “You think if your child is in hospital, and they are very poorly, that they are going to be looked after – they will be safe and they will be secure. But that wasn’t the case for Josh.”

Julie Carroll
Image:
Julie Carroll says her “heart broke” after her son’s crime came to light

Although Joshua was convicted of murder, Leanne says his family hold GMMH partly responsible.

“If you had done your job properly – none of this would have happened,” she said. “Two families wouldn’t have been destroyed and so many hearts wouldn’t have been broken.”

Since 2022, GMMH has been served with several Section 29A warning notices by the Care Quality Commission. These are issued when the commission decides a service needs to make significant improvements, and there is a risk of harm.

In the case of GMMH, their concerns included “ward security systems not consistently keeping people safe”.

Dr John Mulligan is a clinical psychologist for GMMH, working in the community for the early intervention in psychosis service, and a representative for the union Unite.

Dr John Mulligan is
Image:
Dr John Mulligan

He and his colleagues have been going on strike repeatedly across the past seven months, saying they just don’t have the staffing levels they need to keep people safe.

“Thankfully, violent incidents among our service users are quite rare, they are much more likely to be the victims of violence and aggression,” he said. “But serious incidents are happening regularly. Far too regularly.

“It’s very upsetting for staff and for patients and families.”

Joshua Carroll mug shot Pic: Greater Manchester Police
Image:
Joshua Carroll . Pic: Greater Manchester Police

Salli Midgley, chief nurse at the Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust said: “On behalf of GMMH, we express our heartfelt condolences to Headley Thomas’s loved ones at this very sad time.

“Our thoughts and sympathies remain with everyone who has been affected by this most devastating incident. We are deeply sorry that it happened while Joshua Carroll was under our care.

“Under the trust’s new leadership, we have been working closely with NHS England, our commissioners and the CQC to create better, safer and well-led services for all.”

Notes the Carroll family have kept about their complaints
Image:
The Carroll family asked for Joshua to be moved to a different unit after his escapes

She continued: “A huge amount of progress has already been made but we know we still have a lot to do to improve our services.

“As part of this work, we are currently carrying out an in-depth investigation into the care and treatment provided to Mr Carroll, and the circumstances leading to Mr Thomas’ death, the findings of which will be shared with NHS England.

“We are unable to comment further on this case whilst the investigation is ongoing.”

Barry Thomas’s family told Sky News mental health is a very serious issue – but they believe Joshua Carroll tried to “play down his actions”.

They said: “Let’s all remember that a life was taken. Our brother, father, and uncle. The evidence the police gathered was in plain sight for all to see.

“We, the family, would like to thank all the police involved for the work they have done, in bringing justice for Barry.”

Continue Reading

Trending