Interview with Michele Paduano, Former BBC Reporter

by Andrew Sibley JAOC Investigations 

 

Andrew : Michele, you spent three decades reporting for the BBC in the West Midlands. What first drew your attention to the issue of water fluoridation?

Michele Paduano: I became interested after reviewing the landmark 2024 decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The court found that the U.S. fluoridation level of 0.7 milligrams per litre posed an “unreasonable risk” to children’s health. In the West Midlands, our water is fluoridated at 1 mg/L — about 30% higher than the U.S. level.

 

Andrew: Did anyone influence your investigation into the science behind fluoridation?

Paduano: Yes. Professor Vyvyan Howard, a pathologist specializing in toxicology and a long-time collaborator, alerted me to several major cohort studies in top academic journals linking water fluoridation to lower IQ in children.

Andrew: How did you feel about the mainstream media’s handling of these findings?

Paduano: The rebuttals were so strong and absolute that I knew publishing a story would be difficult. I only pursued it after reading the September 2024 court decision, which cited new evidence pointing to potential neurodevelopmental risks at lower fluoride concentrations. At that point, it felt like my public duty to tell people in the West Midlands that there was potentially a problem.

 

Andrew: What happened when you tried to pitch the story at the BBC?

Paduano: I pitched it through the BBC’s planning process and even arranged an interview with West Midlands anti-fluoridation campaigner Joy Warren. But senior online and television editors abruptly cancelled it. They told me the story was “scaremongering.” Internal BBC scientists and public-health staff insisted there was no credible new evidence. When I challenged them and urged them to read the U.S. court judgment, they accused me of bias.

Andrew: How did you respond to those accusations?

Paduano: As a BBC journalist, impartiality is fundamental. But impartiality also means reporting new evidence when it emerges.

 

Andrew: Did you consult other experts on the issue?

Paduano: Yes, I spoke with Professor John Fawell, a leading U.K. pro-fluoridation expert and adviser to the World Health Organization. He acknowledged that recent research should prompt the U.K. to consider lowering fluoridation levels to match U.S. and Canadian guidance. If somebody who is a leading pro-fluoride proponent adjusts their position, that is a story. But BBC editors still refused to let me cover it.

 

Andrew: Did you escalate your concerns within the BBC?

Paduano: I emailed Deborah Turness, CEO of BBC News and Current Affairs, and Tim Davie, the Director-General. The response was radio silence. I then took my concerns to Nicholas Serota, a BBC board member responsible for editorial standards.

 

Andrew: What happened next?

Paduano: I learned of planned BBC coverage in the North East about proposed fluoridation expansion. I told Serota that failing to mention the U.S. court decision would constitute significant censorship. The article that eventually appeared briefly mentioned the judgment, but I argued that the West Midlands — which has fluoridated its water for decades — should also have reported on the new developments. The editorial board refused, saying the concern was that we would be scaremongering, frightening people, and that the science wasn’t there.

 

Andrew: Did this influence your decision to leave the BBC?

Paduano: Yes. My frustrations over fluoride reporting, along with broader concerns about the broadcaster’s impartiality and its close relationship with government, ultimately pushed me to leave.

 

Andrew: How did the BBC cover fluoridation after you left?

Paduano: Soon after, the BBC published an article about Worcestershire public health officials recommending countywide fluoridation. In what I described as “the ultimate bias,” the article didn’t refer to the U.S. judgment or related research.

 

Andrew: What did you do after leaving the BBC?

Paduano: I contacted The Independent, which published my story on Fawell’s changing position. I again approached the BBC, arguing that national coverage proved the issue’s newsworthiness, but editors held their ground and directed me to the complaints process — which has resulted in little progress.

 

Andrew: Has the BBC responded publicly to your allegations?

Paduano: No. The BBC has not responded publicly, and it did not respond to JAOC’s request for comment.