Interview with Carol Kopf

Fluoride Is Everywhere. One Woman Has Spent 40 Years Trying to Tell You.

For over four decades, Carol Kopf has been one of the most persistent voices challenging water fluoridation in the United States. Her journey began with a college journalism assignment in the early 1980s and led to a successful campaign to end fluoridation in Levittown, New York. From there she went on to serve as media director for the Fluoride Action Network, testify before multiple state legislatures, and build a reputation as someone who refuses to let the issue be quietly shelved. She holds a master’s degree from NYU’s Science, Health, and Environmental Reporting Program and has spent her career translating complex science into language the public can act on.

Carol is a contributor to the recently published anthology Fluoride Harm: Suppressed Science and Silenced Voices, which brings together 36 scientists, medical professionals, journalists, and citizen advocates to document the institutional resistance faced by those who question the safety of adding fluoride to public drinking water. The book arrives at a pivotal moment — a 2024 federal court ruling found that water fluoridation poses an “unreasonable risk” to children’s health, the National Toxicology Program’s 2025 meta-analysis in JAMA Pediatrics linked fluoride exposure to lower IQ in children even at levels below 1.5 mg/L, and states like Florida have begun banning the practice outright.

In this interview, Carol traces her path from suburban mother to national advocate, explains why the science is far less settled than most people have been led to believe, and shares what ordinary families can do to understand and reduce their daily fluoride exposure.

With thanks to Carol Kopf.

---

Support Independent Investigative Journalism and Research

This work remains free because paid subscribers make it possible. If you find value here, consider joining them.

What paid subscribers get: Access to all books I’ve written plus 1-2 new ones per month. e.g.

The DMSO Book
Chlorine Dioxide
The PSA Trap
Breast Cancer
Drilling for Profit
What Your Vet Can’t Tell You

Plus: Access to the Deep Dive Audio Library — 180+ in-depth discussions (30-50 min each) exploring the books behind these essays. New discussions regularly added. That’s 100+ hours of content for less than the price of a single audiobook.

[Upgrade to Paid – $5/month or $50/year]

unbekoming@outlook.com

---

1. Carol, you’ve been involved in the fluoridation debate for close to four decades now. Can you please take us back to the beginning — what’s your background, and what first pulled you into this issue?

When my youngest started school, I began college for the first time. With no clue about what I wanted to study and my first choice closed out, I signed up for Journalism. I enjoyed photography. So, photo journalism sounded like a plan. The term assignment was to report on a controversial issue. Since my local newspaper, the Levittown Tribune, had previously published a series of articles by a member of the Nassau County PTA who reported everything bad about fluoridation, it concerned me. But not enough to do anything about it especially after a local dentist, with so many letters after his name, followed up with a two-inch ad claiming fluoridation was safe and effective. Having never challenged authority or doctors at that time, I believed him and stayed in naïve bliss.

My professor rejected my pro/con article and said I had the moral obligation to tell the truth. So, I did. I had to pick a side, she said. The fluoridationists used a lot of name-calling and character assassination. They gave me flyers, pamphlets, newspaper & magazine articles, and insulting screeds from groups or people who backed fluoridation and one study from Tasmania. They provided no evidence of fluoridation chemical (hydrofluosilicic acid) safety. (I still believed, at that time, that it reduced tooth decay.)

Those opposed answered all my doubts with science, clarity, and evidence. They weren’t those evil people that fluoridationists wanted me to believe they were. I read books and research from both sides, communicated with government, researchers, a Judge, health and medical people and organizations.. My article: “Fluoridation: The Emperor Has No Clothes.”

Now that I knew better, I couldn’t let my kids drink this water. With immense help from the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation (NYSCOF), I started the Levittown Safe Water Association where we finally reversed 29 years of fluoridation in Levittown in 1983. But we were tasked with educating residents. It was a community effort. We won by a 2-1 vote of water company customers.

I changed my major to Biology with a minor in Journalism with the intention of becoming a freelance health writer. I went on to get a master’s degree from NYU’s Science and Environmental Reporting Program (now called Science, Health, and Environmental Reporting Program.)

2. You led a successful campaign to end water fluoridation in Levittown, New York back in the 1980s. What was that experience like, and what did it teach you about how these battles are actually won at the local level?

I learned that real change happens from the bottom up with activism. Facts don’t always matter. Legislators need a parade to get in front of. But, in their defense, I’ve seen legislators ousted for opposing fluoridation (Pinellas County, Florida). So, if they don’t have constituent support, why should they bother? You must have their backs.

I learned that gov’t officials lie. Legislators avoid and ignore you – unless you represent a large group of people. TV Talk show hosts look away when you mention fluoridation. Even winning lawsuits doesn’t make fluoridation go away. (i.e. Judge Flaherty in Pennsylvania) I learned that dentists and public health officials are not fluoride experts about any body part that isn’t in the mouth. Fluoridationists are effectively preaching what they were taught in corporate-funded dental schools or seminars. Most health associations that endorsed fluoridation did so because of lobbying by organized dentistry. Few, if any, did original research. Many organizations have silently dropped off of the ADA’s compendium of endorsing organizations.

I learned science can be political, too. Results unfavorable to fluoride sometimes was rejected – not on the science; but on the conclusion.

The media doesn’t fact-check what the pro-fluoridationists tell them but they do denigrate us like the fluoridationists want them to. The American Dental Association is a very politically power special interest group which is behind virtually every fluoridation battle. Corporate interests fund dentistry, legislators thru PAC’s, and the media thru advertising. “Fluoridation: Follow the Money” gives details.

3. You went on to become media director for the Fluoride Action Network and have testified before multiple state legislatures. How did your role evolve from local campaigner to someone operating on a national stage?

After we stopped fluoridation in Levittown, I worked as a volunteer with NYSCOF, wrote news releases, and kept researching. NYSCOF provided information to Ellen Connett who then, with her husband Paul Connett, PhD, and their son Michael (before he was a highly successful lawyer) created the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) in 2000. Paul Connett, PhD asked me to be the Media Director. However, I’ve retired from that position and now speak only for myself.

4. You’re a contributor to the recently published book Fluoride Harm: Suppressed Science and Silenced Voices. What was the motivation behind bringing 36 different voices together into one anthology, and what does it set out to do that no single article or study could?

Everyone needs to be heard – especially those professionally harmed by opposing fluoridation.

Editors (and now internet influencers and podcasters) always want something new. Everything made public garners support – even when we are negatively portrayed. That’s why, back in the day, we were simply ignored so as not to garner attention. When RFK, Jr stated fluoridation would end under the Trump administration, the major media was cruel. But, as a result two states and hundreds of municipalities have stopped fluoridation based on the evidence presented at the EPA trial by attorney Michael Connett. The plan is to eventually release each chapter as an article to keep the issue alive – from our perspective.

Alberta, Canada’s Dr. Robert Dickson MD was inspired by the book “Canary in a Covid World.” He shared with colleagues, who also opposed fluoridation, for the need for such a book. Hopefully, we could help other professionals from suffering what they endured.

Dr. Dickson faced retribution for his science-based opposition to fluoridation. After facing a Canadian tribunal trial, he was exonerated on three of four charges – 1) fluoridation science 2) free speech and 3) practicing outside the scope of his medical training. To put the issue behind him, he conceded to, and was fined for calling public health medical/dental officers liars despite having evidence to prove it.

Co-editor of the book, Dr. Hardy Limeback, BSc, DDS, PhD faced similar harassment.

5. The book’s subtitle refers to “suppressed science.” For readers who are new to this topic and might assume the science on fluoridation was settled long ago — what would you say is the single most important piece of evidence that challenges that assumption?

First, science is never settled. While fluoride can cause many adverse effects in the body. But it is mostly ignored. (See: http://fluoridealert.org/issues/health ). Dr. George Waldbott wrote the 1978 book “Fluoridation The Great Dilemma” that challenged the assumption – also ignored.

But more recently, the federal lawsuit against the EPA was the first to challenge that assumption on a large scale because it got a lot of attention. And, it provided videos of government officials who couldn’t vouch for fluoridation safety while under oath. A fluoridation-promoting dental director, who has done fluoride research, admitted his job is to promote fluoridation. So his research is suspect; but always used by the fluoridationists.

Phyllis Mullenix, PhD, accomplished researcher, and scientist defied orders to keep silent about her unexpected findings that fluoride gets into rodents’ brains to cause damage. She was fired for doing the right thing She published it in a respected peer-reviewed journal in 1995. She wanted others to replicate the findings. Dr. Mullenix explains in this YouTube video Part 1

and Part 2

Her story is detailed in the first chapter of the book “The Fluoride Deception,” by Christopher Bryson.

Emerging science supports her findings http://fluoridealert.org/articles/brain

Fluoridation promoters usually tear apart any negative fluoridation study; but not for studies glorifying fluoride. Fluoridationists are denigrating the scientists and their research that show a fluoride/IQ link. At least twice, US Govt scientists have had to defend their published findings from misinformation spread by fluoridationists Here “Addressing Critiques of the Evidence Linking Fluoride and Children’s IQ,” Annals of Global Health, by NIH research scientist Kyla W. Taylor et al. And here: “Fluoride benefits and risks: Lessons from 70 years of water fluoridation in Singapore Correspondence,” by NIH scientist, Kyla W Taylor PhD, et al.

Canadian researcher Christine Till, PhD, also had to defend her findings of a fluoride/IQ link despite it being rigorously reviewed more often than usual before publication.

A federal judge, after reviewing hundreds of studies and questioning fluoride experts on both sides of the issue ruled in 2024 that water fluoridation at the level of 0.7 mg/L – the prescribed optimal level of fluoridation in the United States – presents an “unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment,” specifically to infants’ developing brains. EPA appealed that verdict this month on procedural grounds - not on the science which is bullet-proof.

More about censorship and fluoride here: https://fluoridedangers.blogspot.com/2026/01/voices-of-fluoridation-opposition-were.html

6. The 2025 NTP meta-analysis published in JAMA Pediatrics looked at over 70 studies and found an inverse association between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ — including at exposure levels below 1.5 mg/L. In plain terms, what does that finding mean for communities that are still fluoridating their water at 0.7 mg/L?

Communities are still being harmed. First, modern science proves that fluoride ingestion doesn’t reduce tooth decay. Second, if it’s harmful to consume 1.5 mg of fluoride daily via 1 liter of water, then what happens to people who drink 3 liters of fluoridated water daily at the advised level of 0.7 mg/L They will consume 2.1 mg fluoride a day just from water. Those consuming large amounts of water include athletes, soldiers, outdoor workers, dieters, diabetics, and almost anyone living in hot climates without air conditioning. Two million people in more than 1,260 community water systems across the U.S. have average fluoride concentrations in their drinking water above 1.5 mg/L, according to the Environmental Working Group.

It’s undisputed that too much fluoride is health-damaging; that fluoride builds up in the body; that fluoride is ubiquitous in the food supply, dental products, and some medicines and that some groups drink large amounts of water. So artificial fluoridation is unnecessary at any level. Besides federal statistics show that 70% of US children and adolescents are fluoride overexposed and afflicted with dental fluorosis (discolored teeth) Yet, tooth decay is epidemic.

Additionally, EPA rules require a level ten times lower than the amount where harm occurs Since it’s accepted that 1.5 mg/L is harmful, EPA must lower its safe level to 0.15 mg/L. If EPA followed its own rules, US fluoridation schemes would be history. What’s stopping them?

7. In September 2024, a federal judge ruled that water fluoridation poses an “unreasonable risk” to children’s health and ordered the EPA to take regulatory action. That sounds like a landmark moment. Where do things actually stand now — has anything changed on the ground?

Yes. Two states and hundreds of municipalities have stopped fluoridation based on the evidence presented at the trial. They aren’t waiting for government to catch up with the science. Several more states introduced fluoridation legislation But, organized dentistry and government officials still protect fluoridation. They are influencing legislators to pass pro-fluoridation legislation such as that introduced by Congresswoman Lynn Frankel.. Connecticut passed a law ensuring consistent levels of fluoride in Connecticut’s public drinking water, pre-empting any policy changes occurring at the federal level, bragged the American Dental Association.

8. Despite this ruling, and despite the NTP findings, most major health institutions — the CDC, the ADA, the WHO — still endorse water fluoridation. After 40 years of watching this space, what’s your understanding of why so many institutions continue to hold that line in the face of mounting contrary evidence?

First, I believe they all take their lead from the American Dental Association. In my opinion, governments and professionals’ unions are so worried that, if they admit they are wrong on fluoridation, Americans won’t believe any of their advice on any issue, especially about vaccines. The ADA is protecting their own political viability and power. They get many laws passed that benefit dentists and dentistry.

Some people claim that the sellers of hydrofluosilicic acid (HFA) are benefiting; but I see no evidence of that. Since HFA can be sold for other purposes.

However, I was very surprised to learn that the American Chemical Council, a major chemical industry lobbying group, wrote a brief defending fluoridation in the EPA Fluoride Lawsuit.

It doesn’t help us that The Hill reports that the EPA’s second in command in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, an office tasked with setting the nation’s chemical policy and evaluating chemical safety, Nancy Beck, is one of the top women shaping policy. She was a lobbyist for the American Chemical Council before joining the EPA.

9. The book documents a pattern of retaliation against professionals who questioned fluoridation — scientists threatened with de-licensing, researchers fired, careers derailed. Can you walk us through some of the most striking cases?

Dr. William Marcus, an EPA scientist, revealed foul play in federal govt fluoride toxicology research which downgraded, for no scientific reason, cancers found in rodents. He was fired for doing so. He eventually was re-hired with back pay, under the whistle blowers’ act but the findings were never corrected.

I mentioned Dr. Mullenix, Dickson and Limeback above.

10. You’ve been in this fight yourself for four decades, and you’ve written that fluoridation proponents have lied about you to legislators. What has this work cost you personally, and what keeps you going?

I’ve developed a thick skin. But it’s amazing how low they can go (See: Dr. Johnny Johnson’s ad hominem attacks about me and “Profanity-laced Emails, Misuse of CDC Funds: How Big Fluoride Tries to Prevent Towns From Removing Fluoride,” by the Children’s Health Defense organization.

Since I have nothing to lose, I feel obligated, not only to the people who helped me in Levittown, but to protect the professionals and legislators who risk loss of reputation and income to oppose fluoridation. Many activists have dropped out over the years because opposing fluoridation is hard and thankless. There is so much bad going on in the world and the environment, that I can’t control – except with a donation or petition signature. Fluoridation keeps me focused on an issue that where, I believe, I’m making a difference.

11. The subject line of a recent communication of yours was “Fluoride is Ubiquitous; Fluoridation Unnecessary.” You’ve documented how fluoride turns up in sources most people never consider — food, beverages, medications, packaging, even paper straws. What should people understand about their family’s actual daily fluoride exposure, and what are the first things they can do about it?

I believe those who push fluoridation must inform us that the concentration of fluoride in water doesn’t equate to an individual’s daily dose from all sources. It’s undisputed that too much fluoride damages bones and teeth. Why aren’t dentists telling their patients, the media and legislators that? And what is the safe daily dose from all sources?

People must get active in opposing fluoridation where they live or in their state. Even if fluoride is not out in their own water supply, fluoridated water is used to make foods and beverages purchased in supermarkets and restaurants. Until artificial fluoridation ends country-wide, they could avoid fluoride in all its obvious forms. Ask their dentists if it’s “hidden” in tooth filling material or dental cements, etc.

They can look up foods and their fluoride content from the USDA’s fluoride in foods database to determine how much they are ingesting. It’s important to note that tea, seafood and soy products are very high in fluoride and that fluoride-containing pesticide residues remain on some produce. Most importantly Dentist Weston Price proved decades ago that tooth decay is totally diet related (Nutritional and Physical Degeneration). Also, consider a holistic dentist who doesn’t use or recommend fluoridation such as the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology. And International Academy of Biological Dentistry and Medicine (IABDM).

12. You make a point that fluoride has never been approved as a drug by the FDA for ingestion, and that it’s not considered an essential nutrient. Can you explain why that distinction matters and why more people don’t know about it?

Parents are told by their pediatricians and dentists that their children must have fluoride to grow decay-free teeth whether it’s from water or supplements; but that’s not true. The FDA labels fluoride supplements as “unapproved drugs” because safety and efficacy testing never occurred. They can make their own decision if the alleged benefits from fluoride are worth the risks. There is no evidence that consuming a fluoride-free diet or fluoride-free bottled water causes cavities.

13. You’ve pointed out that 80% of dentists refuse Medicaid patients, yet organized dentistry positions fluoridation as a solution for underserved communities. What’s the real story there?

They don’t want to treat Medicaid patients because they aren’t reimbursed enough. Fluoridation gives the illusion that dentistry cares about poor people who aren’t welcomed in their dental chair. It’s an emotional story that grabs at legislators’ heartstrings. Dentists often display a child with a badly swollen face whose tooth decay has gone untreated and imply it happened from a lack of fluoride. However, it really happens from a lack of dental care. And after 81 years of fluoridation, disparities persist.

14. Florida banned fluoridation in May 2025 and its Surgeon General called the practice “public health malpractice.” Several other states are having similar conversations. Do you see the tide genuinely turning, or is this still an uphill fight?

The tide is definitely turning. But they will try to thwart us every step of the way. Their side has the money and power. Our side has the truth.

15. Finally, Carol, what are you focused on right now, and where can people follow your work and stay connected with what’s happening on this issue?

I will continue to educate as many people as I can so they, too, can take action to end fluoridation. I’ll continue to share information with others in the fight and help those new to the fight if asked. My email is nyscof@aol.com.

My blog is http://fluoridedangers.blogspot.com

Twitter http://twitter.com/nyscof

The Fluoride Action Network “Take Action” tool kit: https://fluoridealert.org/take-action/activist-toolkit/

Stand For Health Freedom Tool Kit https://standforhealthfreedom.com/battles-ahead/fluoride/

International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology for more information

A sampling of the scientific studies and reports relevant to water fluoridation published since the HHS 2015 recommendation to lower the fluoridation target to 0.7 ppm http://fluoridelawsuit.com/science