What’s the Best Fluoride Water Filter?

Find the perfect water filter that removes fluoride today, with our guide. We also discuss the pros and cons of water fluoridation in the modern world.


The addition of fluoride to drinking water is a topic that provokes heated debate. In the US, it’s commonplace, but in Europe only around 2% of countries adopt this practice. What can’t be denied though, is that excessive exposure to fluoride can be toxic.

In this post we recommend 4 water filters that are particularly effective at removing fluoride from water. We’ve included a range of different styles of water filtration to suit every home, lifestyle, and budget.

The four types of water filter that we recommend are:

  • A reverse osmosis system that is extremely effective in removing a huge range of drinking water contaminants.
  • whole house system that will filter both the drinking and bathing water in your home.
  • A countertop unit that is less expensive and very easy to install at your kitchen faucet.
  • A shower filter that will filter your bathing water.

Read on to find out which models remove fluoride from water the best.

4 of the Best Fluoride Water Filters

Let’s take a look in more detail at the top water filters that remove fluoride.

1. Reverse Osmosis – iSpring RCC7

ispring-rcc7-larger-imageReverse osmosis is the most powerful method of water filtration available to use at home. It removes more than 1000 harmful water contaminants at rates of up to 99%.

This model is one of the best on the market, and is really well priced too. It has a Water Quality Association Gold Seal certificate  to prove its effectiveness. This accolade is one of the highest available, and proves its power under independent testing.

So, does reverse osmosis remove fluoride?

You bet! The RCC7 is certified to remove 94-96% of fluoride from water, which is one of the highest rejection rates you will find. It will also filter pretty much everything else from water including, chlorine, lead, pesticides, and arsenic.

This water filter is installed under the kitchen sink, and provides filtered drinking water at the faucet.

Bottom Line: This is one of the top water filters around, and probably the best fluoride filter. iSpring also offer amazing customer support and a 1-year satisfaction guarantee.

 2. Whole House System – APEX MR-3020

APEX-MR-3020This 3-stage whole house system is installed where the water supply enters the home. It filters ALL of the household water, and maintains high water pressure.

The 3-stages of water filtration each specialize in removing different water contaminants. The filters are jumbo-sized which means they last a long time, and allow a strong water flow rate. Let’s take a look at what each stage does.

Stage 1 – A 5 micron filter that removes dirt, sediment, and rust.

Stage 2 – An Activated Alumina filter. This material specializes in the removal of fluoride from water. It is also effective at removing arsenic, chlorine, and heavy metals like lead, copper, mercury, and iron.

Stage 3 – A 1 micron pad/ Granular Activated Carbon combination. This stage removes chlorine and its byproducts like chloramines, TCE, and THM.

As it is a whole house system, it is the most expensive of our recommendations. In general, fluoride filters are more expensive than other types of water filter.

Bottom Line: If you need a whole house solution to fluoride in water, then this is the best there is. It comes highly recommended on Amazon, where it is very well reviewed.

3. Countertop Unit – Home Master Jr. F2 Elite

Home-Master-TMJRF2E-Jr-F2-Elite-largeThis water filter is the cheapest of the quality systems we have selected. It is also the easiest to install and to maintain. Installation requires no tools, and can be finished in minutes. This type of filter attaches to the kitchen faucet and sits on the countertop.

It uses a 5-stage filter process that removes up to 93% of fluoride, chloramine, chlorine, aluminum, and other heavy metals like lead, mercury, and copper. The fluoride is targeted in the same way as the APEX unit, by using Activated Alumina.

A nice feature of this system is that it won’t remove the healthy minerals like magnesium and calcium from your water. This means the water tastes great.

Bottom Line: This is a cheaper water filter that removes fluoride. It’s also great if space is an issue, or if you’re worried about installation or maintenance of a water filter.

 4. ProPur ProMax Shower Filter With Shower Head

ProPur-ProMax-Shower-Filter-As promised, we’ve included the best fluoride shower filter. This fluoride filter uses four stages of filtration to protect your skin and hair from over 200 harmful contaminants including heavy metals, VOCs, chlorine, chloramine, fluoride, pharmaceuticals, and herbicides.

It’s really easy to install, and includes a triple function massage shower head.

Bottom Line: The best in bathing water protection from fluoride.

Water Fluoridation: The Backstory

Once hailed as one of the greatest achievements of the 20th century, today, the fluoridation of public drinking water polarizes opinion. In the US it’s widespread, but in Europe it’s rare (less than 2% of countries). Let’s take a look at why this is so, as well as at some of the arguments for and against it.

Water fluoridation, or the addition of fluoride to public water supplies, has been a widespread practice in the United States for over 50 years. Currently, approximately two-thirds of the U.S. population lives in a home with fluoridated public water according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Water fluoridation became (and remains) governmental policy for the purpose of reducing cavities across the whole population. The average concentration of fluoride in fluoridated public water is 1 part per million (ppm), or 1 milligram per liter (mg/L). The concentration of naturally-occurring fluoride in non-fluoridated water is usually less than 0.3 ppm, although the concentration in groundwater may be higher.

The practice of water fluoridation in the United States began in the 1940s, when studies by researchers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) found that a fluoride concentration of about 1 mg/L was linked to fewer cavities (1). Other studies did not discover any significant negative effects of fluoride in water up to a fluoride concentration of 8 mg/L (2).

In 1945, the NIH researchers began a controlled experiment in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in which they fluoridated the public water supply. In 1950, they published the results of their study, which showed a large reduction in the number of cavities (3). Based on the results of this study and others, water fluoridation was implemented across the United States in the following years.

By 1951, water fluoridation was already an official public policy of the U.S. Public Health Service, and water fluoridation was in widespread use across the U.S. by 1960. In 1962, 1.2 mg/L was recommended by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as the optimal fluoride level in drinking water to prevent tooth decay. This recommendation was changed to 0.7 mg/L in 2015, to reflect the more widespread access to fluoride in toothpaste, mouthwash, and other oral health products.

water-fluoridationAccording to the CDC, water fluoridation has decreased tooth decay in both adults and children by approximately 25%. More importantly, water fluoridation is the most cost-effective way to provide all members of the population with fluoride, to improve oral health across all ages and socio-economic classes.

The Community Preventive Services Task Force, established in 1996 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, continues to recommend water fluoridation, because it reduces tooth decay across the whole population.

Critics of water fluoridation point to to several questionable aspects of the method, all of which are related in some way to fluoride dosage. When fluoride is added to the public water supply, it is impossible to control the dosage of fluoride per person. Certain groups of people, including athletes, diabetics, manual laborers, and people with kidney disease, tend to drink much more water than other people. People that drink more fluoridated water receive larger doses of fluoride (beyond the amount intended) to prevent cavities. Another aspect of the dosage problem is that bottle-fed babies, whose formula is mixed with fluoridated water, consume excessive amounts of fluoride relative to their body mass.

In addition to the problem of dosage respective to the amount of water consumed by individual people, overall fluoride consumption is not just limited to fluoridated water. Nowadays, most toothpaste and mouthwash contains fluoride. Although the fluoride in toothpaste and mouthwash is meant to be applied in small doses, some toothpaste is usually swallowed, especially by children.

The question of dosage is important because high levels of fluoride are known to be toxic. Fluoride has been used in the past to decrease activity of hyperactive thyroids. In addition, fluoride accumulates in the body, often in the bones. However, the CDC has found the level of fluoride in the water supply to be safe. The only negative health aspect of fluoridated water at the current fluoridation level is dental fluorosis, according to the CDC.


Dental Fluorosis

Mild forms of dental fluorosis manifest in thin white streaks on the teeth, but severe cases can involve brown stains on the teeth, broken tooth enamel, or pits in the enamel. Dental fluorosis occurs only in young children up to the age of eight, because the fluorosis only arises when the teeth developing under the gums are exposed to too much fluoride over a long period of time. According to the CDC, 41% of children aged 12 to 15 had dental fluorosis in 2010. Most cases of dental fluorosis, however, are so mild that the function of the teeth is not affected, and the white streaks in the teeth are barely visible.

The decision to fluoridate public water, and the concentration of fluoride in use is reviewed regularly by the Environmental Protection Agency, and other governmental agencies tasked with monitoring public health measures.

We hope you found our post regarding the top water filters that remove fluoride useful. Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, or Google+ to keep up to date on all the news in the water filter world. We also write about pollution, health, and the environment. Links are at the top of the page.

Further References

1. Frees, Allan 4; Lehr, Jay H. 4 (2009). Fluoride Wars: How a Modest Public Health Measure Became America’s Longest-Running Political Melodrama. Wiley. pp. 92–129. ISBN 9780470463673.

2. Lennon MA. One in a million: the first community trial of water fluoridation. Bull World Health Organ. 2006;84(9):759–60. doi:10.2471/BLT.05.028209. PMID 17128347. PMC 2627472.

3. Dean HT, Arnold FA, Jay P, Knutson JW. Studies on mass control of dental caries through fluoridation of the public water supply. Public Health Rep. 1950;65(43):1403–8. doi:10.2307/4587515. PMID 14781280.




1 Comment
  1. Hello, and thank you for stepping up to offer the recommendations you’ve made for fluoride water filters. While the debate for and against municipal water fluoridation has evened out somewhat, policies remain in place, forcing the addition of different fluoride containing compounds to community water supplies. I am not here to provide a scholarly update to your article, but suffice to say I am more than qualified to do so. I find the tone, and broader message of your article to appear quite biased, as it fails to convey what are the current and up to date negative health implications of municipal water fluoridation and the consumption of such water by members of these communities. Offering the benefit of the doubt, I will guess that your information is simply VERY outdated, and as such, I implore you to make an immediate update to this article, with reference to the now 10 years old CDC research which without question show the beginning of toxic levels of fluoride consumption in the USA, and other areas around the world, whether due to the shear toxic nature of the environment, such as in China, or due to the nature of municipal water policies, like here in the US. Immediately upon the release of those finding, US and world governing bodies overseeing health dropped their suggested “safe” levels drastically, making the previous low end of .7 ppm, the new HIGH end, down from 1.2ppm previously. The fact is, the proliferation of fluoride has grown rampant and unmanagable at scale, finding its way into nearly every processesed, and many non processed, foods and drinks. For the average American, it is nearly impossible to adequatley control the level of Fluoride consumption without starving to death. Dental Fluorsis is an intial visible sign of toxic levels of Fluoride being consumed, and is by no means purely cosmetic, or still safe in any way. Your article downplays this fact. What you can’t see so easily with the naked eye, is what systemic fluoride is doing to your endocrine system. Fluoride bonds into compounds more easily than most other elements, hence the high toxicity, and when your endocrine system is looking for some calcium to make hormones, which regulate every aspect of your body, it will easily, and mistakenly use fluride instead, should it be available, the same way it bonds to bone and teeth where it should only be calcium. While topical appoliicatoijn of Fluoride may be more arguable, systemic Fluride is without a doubt a terrible way to go about leveraging the “benefits.” Lighting the clothes you’re wearing on fire might make for a very convincing Halloween costume effect, but how many would find the cost/risk/benefit of this practice favorable to health? While the reliability of even our scholarly, peer reviewed articles, generated on the dime of public taxes, has alamingly decreased in the last decade, I’ve been deep through the books going back into the late 1800’s, looking for primary citations. There is no question that the move to fluoridate municipal water was rushed, with a scientifically limited, and very short time period of testing. The reason for rushing it through are likely many, but glaringly, big industries like those that smeltered aluminium, and other toxic waste producing industries, could not be profitable when faced with the obligation to implement a safe and effective means of dealing with the toxic waste produced by their industrial processes. Well around that time, right here in Colorado, Colorado Springs to be exact, the connection between the mottled, pitted teeth, and weak, brittle bones that seemed to affect many in the local population, and fluoride was made. Nearby deposits of a Fluoride heavy, naturally occurring mineral called Cryolite, contaminated the local water supply. Upon this discovery, the connection between populations with these symptoms of fluorosis, in communities where there was in fact no Cryolite to be found, was made to the Fluoride rich toxic fumes produced by nearby Al smelting plants. This toxic smoke fell from the air, landing all over the hillsides, where it was then flushed down into ground water and other supplies, contaminating local drinking water. In my opinion, the “benefits,” then proposed, based these discoveries, of Fluoride were flimsy at best. Indeed the meager studies, and casual observances of dentists in CO Springs did show Fluoride affecting the enamel of teeth, but eventually, the sustained consumption lead to pitted teeth, weak bones, and other ailments. In the end, not only did the industries not have to pay to dispose of toxic waste, they actually sold it to municicpalites for profit. Fluoride is highly toxic, meaning we can tolerate very, very little in our system before it begins to cause damage. In these current times, as of March, 2019, people have never consumed more Fluoride in their daily lives, and every day that record is likely to be broken, as no policy has been put in place to change this. Even if one chooses to believe the perceived benefits of Fl are worth the risk, the broader community can no longer effectively control their intake, and average intake is shown repeatedly to have increased beyond toxic levels, as fluoridated water is used nearly everything, making it’s way into places that were never anticipated at the time of the science you reference in your article. With my growing bent towards cynicism, and threadbare trust in establishment, it’s easy for me to call into question your findings on the efficacy of the above filters, and to be safer, I would warn, and recommend anybody reading this page for advice on filtration, to disregard the disingenuous, and outdated “discussion,” above, and seek further for evidence of the efficacy of these systems. They may very well be the best filters available, or thereabouts, or not at all, but you are not going to know based on the oudated at best, deceptive at worst, words of the voice of this page. If my email is publicly visible, to anyone, by all means, I welcome intelligent debate on this matter. A fan of healthy competition, I always enjoy a good ‘win,’ and there exists not a single worthy argument for the continued poisoning of municipal water supplies with Fluoride containing compounds sourced from toxic industrial waste. If my email is not visible, simply request it here.

    To the owner of this page, my passion on the subject prevents me from avoiding an ultimately disparaging tone in my reply here. With that said, I am willing to offer for free, my time, and any assistance you might require, should you wish to correct, and update, your article. Certainly you can reach me.

    -S.M. 3/19

    Pardon errors in grammar, and any fragmented thoughts in my reply as the time to proofread was more than limited.

Leave a reply