Dominic Balog-Way

Research Associate

Dominic Balog-Way is a research associate and member of the Risk Communication Research Group at Cornell University. He studies scientific misinformation and risk communications.

Balog-Way says:

“Much of the debate stems from a fundamental confusion between hazard and risk. Kennedy’s approach often focuses on hazard classification – the mere potential of a substance to cause harm – rather than on risk assessment, which considers both the likelihood and severity of harm, including levels of exposure. Calls to ban fluoride are often based on hazard assessments alone, rather than risk assessments produced by scientific agencies like the CDC that analyze the actual risk fluoride poses to Americans. As the famous saying goes ‘the dose makes the poison,’ and even unfluoridated water in great enough quantities can kill. Despite his rhetoric around safety, science, and harm reduction, Kennedy’s reasoning appears to rely on hazard-based thinking that ignores how risk is scientifically assessed.

“Our risk judgements are guided by cognitive processes that can sometimes lead us astray. In the case of water fluoridation, research shows that people tend to rely on what is known as the “natural-is-better” heuristic, whereby we favor natural substances over synthetic ones, regardless of the scientific evidence. This mental shortcut can lead to heightened risk perceptions of anything viewed as artificial, like fluoride, even in minute quantities judged time and time again to be safe by health authorities.

“We must not overlook the public health benefits of substances like fluoride. Water fluoridation has been proven to reduce cavities and prevent costly dental interventions. A blanket rejection of synthetic chemicals, based solely on hazard classifications without weighing the benefits and risks, can lead to policy decisions that may do more harm than good.

“If we truly care about public health and evidence-based decision-making, we need to resist disparaging labels, and catchall references to ‘the spread of misinformation’. Instead, we must engage in a more thoughtful discussion about how we assess risk, regulate chemicals, and communicate science.”