A ruling by the United States District Court of the Northern District of California ends a ongoing 7-year lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency’s use of water fluoridation chemicals throughout the U.S. Senior Judge Edward Chen ruled fluoridation posed an “unreasonable risk” to the health of children such as a reduced IQ.
The EPA will be required to take regulatory action to restrict or eliminate the risk by law.
“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,” Chen said in his ruling. “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,” Chen said. “Studies have linked IQ decrements of even one or two points to, e.g., reduced educational attainment, employment status, productivity, and earned wages.”
The lawsuit, which was “brought under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA) [that] allows citizens to petition the EPA to evaluate whether a chemical presents an unreasonable risk to public health and should be regulated,” was filed by Fluoride Action Network (FAN) in federal court in 2017 after the EPA denied the Petition filed by the citizens under Section 21 of TSCA in November 2016.
FAN was joined by groups such as, Food and Water Watch, Moms Against Fluoridation, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, and the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, along with several individuals representing themselves and/or their children, according to a press release.
While the ruling did not specify the regulatory action the EPA will take, Chen said “one thing the EPA cannot do, however, in the face of this Court’s finding, is to ignore that risk.”
The ruling stated on page 77; “The scientific literature in the record provides a high level of certainty that a hazard is present; fluoride is associated with reduced IQ. There are uncertainties presented by the underlying data regarding the appropriate point of departure and exposure level to utilize in this risk evaluation. But those uncertainties do not undermine the finding of an unreasonable risk; in every scenario utilizing any of the various possible points of departures, exposure levels and metrics, a risk is present in view of the applicable uncertainty factors that apply.”
Therefore, the verdict is being called a huge loss for the EPA and promoters of fluoridation such as, the American Dental Association and the U.S. Centers For Disease Control, who claimed fluoride was safe for over 75 years and a “historic victory” for FAN and the individuals involved.
“The Court has done what EPA has long refused to do: applied EPA’s risk assessment framework to fluoride,” Michael Connett, attorney at Fluoride Action Network, said. “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?’”
COMMENTS