Legal Challenges Mount Over Child-Targeted Fluoride Products

Multiple Lawsuits Target Major Oral Care Companies

Major oral care companies are facing legal scrutiny over their marketing practices for fluoride-containing products aimed at children, according to recent class action lawsuits filed in federal courts. The lawsuits allege that companies are marketing potentially harmful fluoride products with child-appealing designs while downplaying safety risks.

Safety Concerns and Marketing Tactics

The legal actions target prominent brands including Colgate, Tom’s of Maine, Crest, Hello Products, Perrigo Company, and Chattem, Inc. According to Michael Connett, a partner at Siri & Glimstad representing the plaintiffs, “The qualities they imbue these products with very much entice children to use more and ingest more than they should.”

The lawsuits highlight concerning marketing strategies, such as the use of cartoon characters, bright colors, and candy-like flavors. For instance, Firefly mouth rinse, owned by Perrigo Company, features characters like Paw Patrol and Buzz Lightyear, with sweet-flavored rinses in attractive colors.

Health Risks and Statistics

The severity of the issue is reflected in poison control statistics. In 2023, America’s Poison Centers reported over 9,000 calls related to fluoride toothpaste incidents, with more than 80% involving children under five years old. An additional 3,750 calls concerned fluoride mouthwash, leading to 262 hospital or urgent care visits.

Recent research has raised additional concerns about fluoride exposure. A meta-analysis published in JAMA Pediatrics by National Institutes of Health researchers has linked fluoride exposure to decreased IQ scores, with evidence suggesting a dose-response relationship.

Public health researcher Corey Basch from William Paterson University has studied these marketing practices extensively. Her 2014 study revealed that all examined children’s toothpaste products displayed animated characters, with many featuring food items and flavoring claims that could encourage excessive use.

Regulatory Guidelines vs. Marketing Reality

The FDA maintains strict guidelines for fluoride products, stating they “are not indicated for use in children under 6 years of age” and “should not be within easy reach of any children.” However, the lawsuits allege that many products fail to display these warnings prominently.

The dangers are particularly acute with mouthwash products. Connett calculated that “if a young child drank more than half a bottle of Firefly, it could be fatal.” The FDA requires specific warning labels, but according to Connett, some products display these warnings in text so small they are practically illegible.

None of the manufacturers named in the lawsuits have provided immediate responses to requests for comment about the litigation. “I’m hoping these companies stop these reckless marketing practices, that are causing excess fluoride exposure for millions of kids in the country,” Connett stated.

The outcome of these lawsuits could potentially reshape how oral care products are marketed to children, with implications for both industry practices and public health safety standards.