An investigation has revealed that UK companies are misleading parents about the potential medical benefits of banking stem cells collected from their children’s milk teeth. These companies are reportedly generating substantial profits through claims that such stem cells can be used to treat conditions like diabetes and autism.
Tooth stem cell banking, also known as dental pulp cell banking, involves parents sending lost milk teeth to a laboratory for the extraction of stem cells from the dental pulp. According to the investigation led by Emma Wilkinson and published in the BMJ, three firms—BioEden, Future Health Biobank, and Stem Protect—offer these services in the UK. The process typically costs around £1,900, with an additional £95 annual storage fee.
On its website, Future Health Biobank claims to have released 26 tooth stem cell samples for a variety of treatments, including autism and type 1 diabetes. Meanwhile, Stem Protect states that tooth stem cells may be useful for conditions such as cleft palate repair and HIV/AIDS. The company asserts that “medical trials into autism and cerebral palsy involve the pulp found inside teeth and offer hope for hundreds of conditions.”
In contrast, BioEden promotes the idea that stem cell therapy represents the “next frontier” for treating both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, claiming to have “already witnessed the remarkable evidence of these ongoing developments” among its customers. However, this assertion has drawn skepticism from medical experts.
Jill Shepherd, a senior lecturer in stem cell biology at the University of Kent, expressed concerns about the medical validity of tooth stem cell banking. “There is a lack of evidence and a paucity of research using dental pulp stem cells to treat patients,” she stated. “There’s no evidence to suggest stem cells stored from a child’s milk tooth would ever be needed to treat that child.”
The investigation also highlighted the emotional weight of the issue for parents. Sufyan Hussain, an investigator on the UK arm of a global clinical trial evaluating stem cell therapy, noted that there is no definitive answer about the best source of stem cells for future diabetes treatments. He remarked, “While we remain hopeful about future treatments, there is also a risk that companies might exploit these hopes to generate additional revenue.”
Tim Nicholls, assistant director of policy, research and strategy at the National Autistic Society, criticized the marketing practices of these companies. He described it as “outrageous” that tooth stem cell procedures are being advertised with claims of treating autism. “Autism is not a disease or illness; it cannot be treated and there is no cure,” Nicholls added. “It is dangerous and morally bankrupt to target potentially vulnerable people with expensive procedures that could, in fact, cause harm.”
In response to the findings published in the BMJ, Future Health Biobank stated that it is reviewing how information on its website is presented to ensure clarity between client experiences and formally published clinical outcomes. A spokesperson for Stem Protect defended the company’s practices, asserting, “We have made no unfounded claims, and our website has been reviewed and approved by the Human Tissue Authority. We remain committed to ensuring stem cell banking is presented as a valuable resource, backed by evidence and transparency.”
As the debate over tooth stem cell banking continues, parents are urged to approach these services with caution and to seek reliable medical advice regarding their children’s health.
