Federal Court Rules That Water Fluoridation Poses an “Unreasonable Risk” to Children

After a precedent-setting, seven-year legal battle in federal court, an historic ruling by the United States District Court of the Northern District of California has ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take regulatory action to eliminate the “unreasonable risk” to the health of children posed by the practice of water fluoridation. The ruling requires the EPA to take regulatory action to eliminate the risk, in a decision that could end the use of water-fluoridation chemicals throughout the U.S.

The verdict is a significant loss for the EPA and the promoters of fluoridation like the American Dental Association and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control because the court found that their claims of safety – made for more than 75 years – were in fact not supported by evidence.

Senior Judge Edward Chen wrote:

“The Court finds that fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligrams per liter (“mg/L”) – the level presently considered “optimal” in the United States – poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children … the Court finds there is an unreasonable risk of such injury, a risk sufficient to require the EPA to engage with a regulatory response.

“In all, there is substantial and scientifically credible evidence establishing that fluoride poses a risk to human health; it is associated with a reduction in the IQ of children and is hazardous at dosages that are far too close to fluoride levels in the drinking water of the United States … . Reduced IQ poses serious harm. Studies have linked IQ decrements of even one or two points to, e.g., reduced educational attainment, employment status, productivity, and earned wages.”

The ruling did not specify exactly what measures must be adopted by the EPA, but under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), once the court rules that a chemical poses an unreasonable risk, the EPA is obligated by law to restrict or eliminate the risk.

Judge Chen described a range of options for regulating fluoridation, including banning it, but he warned:

“One thing the EPA cannot do, however, in the face of this Court’s finding, is to ignore that risk.”

The Fluoride Action Network’s attorney, Michael Connett, said, “The Court has done what EPA has long refused to do: applied EPA’s risk assessment framework to fluoride. It’s a historic decision. And, as we await EPA’s rule-making proceeding, policymakers would be well advised to ask: 'Should we really be adding a neurotoxicant to our drinking water?'”

This is the first time a citizen’s petition has gone to trial, and it’s the first time a citizen group has won a trial against EPA under TSCA Section 21. Our case and our victory will undoubtedly create opportunities for citizen and environmental watchdog groups to use the same blueprint as FAN in the future to force the EPA to adequately regulate chemicals that pose an unreasonable risk to public health.

This trial was also the first time citizen groups have successfully obtained a full objective review of the science on fluoridation, in a courtroom, with experts under oath, under TSCA’s provisions that create a level playing field between the citizen groups and the EPA defending a chemical. Under most statutes, when citizens sue a federal agency, the courts give deference to the views of the agency. But in this lawsuit, under a special provision of TSCA, the court does not give deference to the EPA. Congress specifically added this level playing field because it recognized EPA can be too slow to address harmful chemical exposures.

Policymakers at the local and state level do not need to wait to take action. The federal government doesn’t mandate fluoridation, and thus local and state decision-makers can take action immediately. We have a very thorough decision made by the federal courts based on extensive evidence.

The public didn’t sign up to have a chemical added to public drinking water that could adversely affect the brain. And while a cavity can easily be filled, damage to the brain is permanent, and the consequences are lifelong. There are no second chances when it comes to impaired brain development.

Stuart Cooper is the executive director of Fluoride Action Network. Read the full article here: FluorideAlert.org/content/federal-court-rules-that-water-fluoridation-poses-an-unreasonable-risk-to-children/.