Short answer: no, fluoride toothpaste hasn't been banned in 2026. But it has come under real regulatory pressure: in October 2025 the FDA restricted unapproved ingestible fluoride supplements (drops and tablets) for children under 3, and in January 2026 Texas forced Crest and Colgate to fix kids' toothpaste packaging that showed too much product on the brush. Neither action outlaws fluoride toothpaste itself, but both are squarely about the same thing, how much fluoride a small child ends up swallowing, which is exactly the risk nano-hydroxyapatite toothpaste sidesteps, since it isn't a dose-controlled substance at all.
Video: "The FDA has restricted prescription fluoride. Here's what it means for parents..." — KSL News Utah
A few customers have messaged us this month asking some version of the same question, usually after seeing a headline about fluoride and kids on their phone while they're mid scroll, toothbrush in the other hand. Is this the thing that's finally going to make fluoride toothpaste get pulled off shelves? Should they be worried about what they've already been using? And, more pointedly, does any of this actually change anything about what we make.
Fair questions, and worth answering properly rather than either dismissing the news or leaning into it to sell more tablets. So here's what's genuinely happened, what it doesn't mean, and where nano-hydroxyapatite actually fits into the picture, without pretending the regulatory story is simpler or scarier than it is.
If you want the full background on what nano-hydroxyapatite is before we get into the news side of things, we've written that up plainly in What Is Nano-Hydroxyapatite, Really?, and the case for why we moved away from fluoride altogether is in The Dentist-Backed Truth About Modern Toothpaste.
✨ Save 10% on your first orderWhat did the FDA actually restrict, and does it include toothpaste?
No, and this is the bit that gets flattened the most in headlines. On 31 October 2025, the FDA acted against unapproved ingestible fluoride prescription products, drops and tablets meant to be swallowed, aimed mainly at children under 3, plus a caution around older children at low or moderate cavity risk. FDA Commissioner Marty Makary pointed to fluoride's potential effect on the gut microbiome and cited "preliminary but potentially concerning data" linking higher fluoride exposure to lower IQ in children. Four companies received enforcement notices, and healthcare professionals got a warning letter about the risks.
That's a real, serious action. But it's about supplements you swallow on purpose, not toothpaste you spit out. Worth noting too that the American Dental Association pushed back on it, arguing that fluoride drops and tablets are "a safe and effective way to strengthen teeth" for children at genuinely high risk of decay, and that the decision should stay between a dentist and a patient rather than being restricted wholesale. So even within dentistry, this isn't a settled, one-sided story, and we think it's worth saying that plainly rather than only quoting the part that supports switching to fluoride-free.
Why did Texas force Crest and Colgate to change their kids' toothpaste packaging?
This is the action that's actually about toothpaste, and it's a dosing story, not a safety-of-the-ingredient story. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton secured agreements with Procter & Gamble (Crest) and separately with Colgate-Palmolive requiring their children's toothpaste packaging to "clearly depict the appropriate amount of toothpaste for children," with the new Crest packaging rolling out from 1 January 2026 under a five-year compliance requirement. Paxton's stated concern was that "misleading images that show excessive amounts of fluoride toothpaste put children's health and brain development at risk," essentially that parents were being shown a smiling child with a fully-loaded toothbrush when the actual guidance is a pea-sized amount, or a mere smear for under-3s.
So this wasn't "fluoride toothpaste is dangerous, stop selling it." It was "you've been showing parents roughly triple the recommended dose in your own marketing photos, fix that." A narrower point than the headlines suggest, but a legitimate one, because fluoride toothpaste genuinely does need dosing discipline in a way most people don't think about while they're squeezing a tube half asleep at 7am.
| Fluoride toothpaste | Nano-hydroxyapatite toothpaste | |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | A synthetic mineral compound added at a regulated concentration | A naturally occurring mineral, ~97% the same substance as tooth enamel |
| Ingestion if swallowed regularly | Dose matters; overuse in young children is linked to dental fluorosis and is the basis of the 2026 packaging actions | Not a toxic dose concern in the way fluoride is, since it's the same mineral your teeth are already made of |
| Recommended amount for under-3s | A rice-grain-sized smear, spit only, per ADA and NHS guidance | One tablet; MGR recommends adult supervision for children under 5 |
| 2026 regulatory attention | FDA restricted ingestible supplements (Oct 2025); Texas required accurate dosing imagery on Crest and Colgate kids' packaging (Jan 2026) | No equivalent action, as there's no ingestible-dose mechanism being regulated |
| Cavity-prevention evidence | Decades of large-scale clinical evidence, the established standard | Growing clinical evidence, including a 1-year randomised trial and a recent systematic review, generally comparable, still a smaller evidence base than fluoride's |
Is fluoride toothpaste actually dangerous for children?
Used correctly, no, that's the honest answer, and it's important we say that rather than overstating the case for switching. The professional guidance (ADA, NHS, and equivalents) is that fluoride toothpaste is safe and effective at the recommended dose: a smear for under-3s, a pea-sized amount from age 3, always spit rather than swallow. The regulatory actions this year haven't changed that guidance. What they've targeted is the gap between that guidance and what actually happens in a lot of bathrooms, where a toddler grabs the tube, squeezes on a blob three times the recommended size, and swallows most of it because spitting on command isn't exactly a toddler skill.
That gap is real. Dental fluorosis, the faint white or brown mottling on developing teeth, is well documented as a result of excess fluoride ingestion during childhood, which is precisely why "how much are kids actually swallowing" has become the regulatory focus rather than "is fluoride itself unsafe."
What makes nano-hydroxyapatite different if a child swallows it?
The core difference is that there's no dosing threshold to manage in the first place. Nano-hydroxyapatite (nHAp) is a biomimetic form of the same calcium mineral that makes up roughly 97% of natural tooth enamel. It isn't metabolised the way fluoride is, and there isn't a "too much fluoride in the body" style toxicity mechanism attached to it, which is why it's been used in toothpaste in Japan since the 1980s, including in children's formulations, without the ingestion caveats fluoride carries.
That doesn't mean "let a toddler eat the jar," to be clear, and it's why we still recommend supervising brushing for children under 5, mainly around choking on a whole tablet and building good brushing habits, not because of mineral toxicity. It's also not medical advice, and if your child has a specific health condition or you're unsure what's right for their age, that's a conversation for your dentist, not a blog post.
Does nano-hydroxyapatite actually prevent cavities as well as fluoride?
The evidence is genuinely encouraging, though smaller in volume than fluoride's decades of data, and we'd rather undersell this than oversell it. A one-year randomised clinical trial published in Scientific Reports found microcrystalline hydroxyapatite toothpaste performed comparably to fluoride toothpaste in reducing early childhood caries. A more recent systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical evidence for hydroxyapatite in caries prevention reached broadly similar conclusions, hydroxyapatite works, and in several trials performs on par with fluoride. It isn't a bigger or longer-established body of evidence than fluoride's, and we won't pretend it is, but "comparable results, no dosing risk to manage" is a genuinely reasonable trade-off for a lot of families, which is exactly why we built the tablets around a 10% concentration in the first place.
One tablet is one measured dose, every time, so there's nothing to eyeball at 7am with a wriggling toddler.
Shop the Toothpaste TabletsHow much toothpaste should a child actually use, whichever kind you choose?
If you're sticking with fluoride toothpaste, the guidance hasn't changed this year, it's just getting enforced more visibly on packaging: a smear the size of a grain of rice for children under 3, a pea-sized amount from age 3 to 6, always supervised, always spit rather than swallow. If you're using nHAp tablets, it's one tablet, chewed briefly to turn into paste, with the same supervision recommended for under-5s so a small child doesn't try to swallow a whole tablet whole rather than brush with it.
2,000+ 5-star reviews on Trustpilot"Peace of mind knowing my routine is now free from fluoride."
— Frank, verified My Green Routine customer
What should I actually do with this news as a parent?
Honestly, not panic, and not assume the decision's been made for you either way. If fluoride toothpaste is working for your family and you're confident about dosing it correctly, this year's actions don't change the underlying safety guidance, they've mostly tightened up how it's marketed to you. If the idea of managing a dosing threshold for a toddler who eats toothpaste like it's a snack has always made you uneasy, that unease is exactly what nano-hydroxyapatite is designed to remove from the equation, not because fluoride is secretly dangerous, but because nHAp simply doesn't carry the same swallow-and-worry mechanism in the first place.
Has fluoride toothpaste been banned in 2026?
No. The FDA's October 2025 action restricted unapproved ingestible fluoride supplements, drops and tablets, mainly for children under 3. It doesn't cover toothpaste. Fluoride toothpaste remains available and is still endorsed by the ADA and NHS when used at the recommended dose.
What exactly did Texas force Crest and Colgate to change?
Their children's toothpaste packaging had to stop depicting an overfilled toothbrush and instead show the actually recommended amount, a pea-sized dab or smaller. The new Crest packaging began rolling out on 1 January 2026 under a five-year agreement with the Texas Attorney General.
Is nano-hydroxyapatite toothpaste safe if my child swallows some?
nHAp is the same mineral that makes up most of natural tooth enamel, so it doesn't carry fluoride's ingestion-dosing risk. We still recommend supervising brushing for children under 5, mainly for choking safety and good habit-forming, not because of mineral toxicity. This isn't medical advice; speak to your dentist about your child specifically.
Does hydroxyapatite toothpaste prevent cavities as well as fluoride?
Clinical trials, including a one-year randomised study in children, have found hydroxyapatite performs comparably to fluoride at reducing cavities, though the evidence base is smaller than fluoride's decades of research. Individual results vary, and it isn't a guarantee against any specific dental condition.
What age can children start using MGR's toothpaste tablets?
They're formulated to be suitable for children as well as adults, with adult supervision recommended for children under 5. As with any toothpaste, if your child has a specific dental or medical concern, check with your dentist first.
Why doesn't nano-hydroxyapatite need a "spit, don't swallow" warning like fluoride?
Because the warning exists specifically to manage fluoride ingestion, not brushing in general. Since nHAp isn't associated with the same dose-related risk, there's no equivalent threshold to protect against, though good brushing habits and supervision for young children still apply for entirely practical reasons.
"Questions like this one are genuinely my favourite part of the job, not because we get to talk about fluoride news, but because it means someone's actually reading the label and thinking about what goes in their kid's mouth. If you want to go deeper on why we chose nHAp in the first place, the science page below is where we laid it all out."
— Jonny, Founder, My Green Routine
See the Science Behind nHApNone of this is us telling you fluoride is the enemy, it genuinely isn't, and pretending otherwise wouldn't be honest. What we do think is worth knowing is that there's now real regulatory scrutiny on how much of it ends up in small mouths, and that nano-hydroxyapatite is one legitimate way to sidestep that question entirely rather than manage it carefully every single brushing. If you've seen other headlines on this that we haven't covered here, or you've got a dentist's take worth sharing, drop it in the comments, we'd genuinely like to keep this page accurate as the story develops.
Stock up once and skip the reorder for a year. Normally £172, today £114 one-time, or subscribe for £91 (a 20% subscription discount) with a free travel case included.
Shop the 12-Month SupplyKeep reading
Sources: FDA, action on unapproved ingestible fluoride drug products · American Dental Association, statement on the FDA action · Texas Attorney General, agreement with Crest/P&G · Texas Attorney General, agreement with Colgate-Palmolive · Scientific Reports, 1-year randomised trial of microcrystalline hydroxyapatite toothpaste in children · Systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical evidence of caries prevention by hydroxyapatite · My Green Routine on Trustpilot. This article is for general information only and is not medical or dental advice; speak to your dentist about what's right for your child.