Fluoride Lawsuits Target Children’s Dental Products From Crest, Colgate, Others

Lawsuits have been filed against at least four manufacturers of dental products, alleging that the fluoride in their children’s toothpastes and mouthwashes poses potential risks to children’s development and health.

Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral that has been used for decades in dental products and drinking water to help prevent tooth decay and strengthen enamel. However, numerous studies in recent years have highlighted a host of concerns related to fluoride consumption, particularly among children, including risks of developing autism or ADHD and lower IQ scores.

In September 2024, a California judge required the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review acceptable levels of fluoride in drinking water, determining that current standard levels of water fluoridation presented an unreasonable risk to children.

Following this ruling, at least six different lawsuits have been filed in federal courts in California and Illinois against Colgate-Palmolive Company, the maker of Colgate and Tom’s of Maine toothpastes and rinses, Procter & Gamble Company, which makes Crest “Kids” toothpaste, Perrigo Company PLC, the maker of Firefly anti-cavity rinse, and Sanofi SA, which makes ACT Kid’s Rinse.

The lawsuits raise allegations that the amount of fluoride in dental products marketed to kids could cause children severe harm, and in some instances even kill them.

Kid Toothpastes Could Be Dangerous for Children

In a complaint (PDF) filed in the U.S. District District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on January 13, Patricia Gurrola and others claim that Procter & Gamble Company knowingly markets Crest toothpaste products for children despite containing excessive fluoride levels that make them unsafe to swallow.

In a separate complaint (PDF) filed by Cheyenne Verbish and others in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on that same day, plaintiffs allege that  Colgate-Palmolive has also marketed their dental products as safe for children, despite containing the same concentrations of fluoride as those used in adult brands of dental products.

In both instances, the lawsuits claim that the companies have used deceptive marketing practices to imply that parents should be giving their children toothpaste amounts greater than the recommended dosage.

In fact, the defendants’ marketing shows pictures of toothpaste amounts on toothbrushes that greatly exceed the “smear” or “pea-sized” amounts recommended for children by the FDA, according to the complaints.

The plaintiffs claim that the defendants knowingly market toothpaste that contains fluoride levels three to four times higher than what is safe for children aged three to six, and up to eight to 10 times higher than safe levels for children under three.

According to Gurolla, Verbish and others, these actions could lead to lower IQ scores or fluorosis, which is a condition that can include mottled teeth and calcification of ligaments due to excessive amounts of fluoride in the body.

Moreover, the lawsuits indicate that the flavor of these children’s toothpastes are deliberately “candy-like,” encouraging children to consume large amounts of the toothpastes.

The complaints allege that these toothpastes may not only harm children’s intellectual and physical development but also contain enough fluoride to pose a potentially fatal risk if a child ingests an entire tube.

“Studies have empirically tested, and confirmed, that adding candy flavor to toothpaste increases the amount of paste that children add to their brush, as well as the amount of toothpaste that they ingest,” Gurolla’s lawsuit states. “According to the FDA, marketing dangerous products to children through the use of candy or food flavoring can qualify as a ‘misleading’ marketing tactic that renders a product ‘misbranded’ under the FDCA.”

Gurrola is seeking class action status for her complaint, alleging breach of implied warranty of merchantability, deceptive acts and practices, and deceptive business practices against Procter & Gamble. She is seeking compensatory damages, restitution, statutory damages, punitive damages and treble damages.

Verbish is seeking class action status and similar damages from Colgate-Palmolive, while additional plaintiffs have filed similar lawsuits against Perrigo Company PLC and Sanofi SA, alleging the same concerns.