December 06, 2024
Food and Water Watch et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency et al.
The first phase of the trial June 8–19 2020.
The second phase of the trial January 31 to February 20, 2024.
The verdict and what’s ahead:
Food and Water Watch et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency et al.
Some background is necessary in order to understand why this trial came about and why it is important.
In 2006, at the request of the EPA, the National Research Counsel evaluated the EPA’s maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) for fluoride in drinking water. The goal was 4.0 ppm.
The conclusions reached by the NRC were:
1. Fluoride can adversely affect the development of the brain.
2. Elevated levels of fluoride in drinking water may be of concern.
3. Additional research is warranted.
Unfortunately, fluoride is such a sacred cow, that over the next 10 years the recommendations of the NRC to perform a risk evaluation of the toxic effects of fluoride was not done by the EPA.
It was suggested that the EPA was not acting in the best interest of the public.
In 2014 a scientific journal, Lancet Neurology, published a list of chemicals “known to cause developmental nerve damage or toxicity in human beings.”
Fluoride was added to that list.
In 2015 the US Public Health Service (PHS) under HHS (Health and Human Services) lowered the recommended level of fluoride in our drinking water from 0.9 ppm to 0.7 ppm. It was reported that the reason this was done was because the PHS wanted to better balance the harms of fluorosis against the benefits of preventing cavities. Neurotoxicity was not a factor in their decision.
In 2016 Congress amended the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) empowering US citizens to petition the EPA for a determination whether a chemical posed an unreasonable risk of injury to health and environment. These evaluations are called risk management evaluations. The TSCA also stipulated that should the EPA deny the request for a review a citizen was entitled to judicial review.
On November 22, 2016 a letter was sent to the EPA. The petitioners were organizations and individuals.
The organizations were the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, Fluoride Action Network, Food and Water Watch, the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Moms Against Fluoridation and the Organic Consumers Association.
The individual petitioners were Audrey Adams, Jacqueline Denton, Valerie Green, Paxton Scriber, Kristi Lavelle, and Brenda Staudenmaier.
In the petition they stated “We hereby petition the United States Environmental Protection Agency to protect the public and susceptible subpopulations from the neurotoxic risk of fluoride by banning the addition of fluoridation chemicals to water.” On February 17, 2017 the EPA denied the petitioner’s request.
When faced with a lawsuit in Federal Court, the EPA hired an outside consulting firm, Exponent, to defend the EPA’s position that fluoride is not neurotoxic to humans. It was also defended by lawyers from the Department of Justice.
The EPA’s first witness was Dr. Joyce Donahue from the EPA’s Office of Water. She testified that as of 2019 the EPA had only conducted risk assessments of fluoride in light of harm to teeth and bones. As noted previously the EPA is so incompetent that they had to hire an independent firm to defend their position on fluoride.
Witnesses testified to the following:
“There is no doubt that fluoridation poses a threat to the brains of children. The risk of neurological damage occurs at levels currently used to fluoridate public drinking water.” – Dr. Philippe Grandjean.
“There is no safe level of fluoride exposure with regard to neurotoxicity.” – Dr. Bruce Lanphear
Casey Hannah, CDC Oral Health Division Director, agreed with the NRC 2006 conclusions but did nothing about it.
In the opinion of many, if the EPA determined that there was a neurotoxic risk from fluoride, they would have to ban fluoridation.
As the trial was coming to a close, Judge Chen gave the EPA the opportunity to accept an amended petition allowing the EPA to reassess the hazards posed by fluoridation. They stated they didn’t have the resources available to conduct a risk assessment of fluoride as a neurotoxin.
As the trial came to a close, the National Toxicology Program was completing a six-year review of the effect of fluoride on a developing brain. Judge Chen delayed the trial to allow him the opportunity to review this report before making a decision.
It was expected to be out in early 2021. Nearly two years later in December, 2022 the DOJ finally agreed to produce a draft copy of the report for the Court.
The report revealed that 52 out of 55 studies found decreases in the IQ of children associated with a high level of fluoride exposure.
Some studies were done in areas where the fluoride exposure rate was 0.7 ppm, the current level of fluoridated water.
The report suggested that a fluoride level of 1.5 ppm from all sources was associated with a 7 pt. drop in IQ. A 7 pt. drop in IQ suggests the difference between a high school graduate and a non-graduate and between a retail store manager and a sales clerk. It is also suggested that for every point drop in IQ there is a loss of $18,000 in life-time earnings.
At the end of the trial FAN took the Court’s suggestion and filed a supplemental petition with the EPA asking it to reconsider its decision. However, in January, 2021 EPA denied the supplemental request.
As of January 2022, the court was still waiting for NTP’s final report.
In October 2022 FAN received a report that political pressure from the CDC and HHS was preventing the report from becoming public.
Information released via a FOIA request indicated that at the last second there was interference from Assistant Health Secretary Rachel Levine, a pediatrician, preventing the report from being made public.
In December 2022 DOJ agreed to release a draft copy of the NTP‘s report.
The second phase of the trial—January 31-February 20, 2024.
Lead attorney Paul Connett went to the Judge to explain the interference on the part of HHS. The Judge agreed to restart the trial on January 31, 2024. It would run until February 20, 2024.
At the beginning of the second phase of the trial it was stipulated that:
1. Fluoride transfer from the mother to the fetal brain was an undisputed fact, and
2. Fluoride has a neurotoxic affect on fetal and infant brain development.
It was revealed in the second phase of the trial that the EPA didn’t follow its own guidelines nor TSLA’s guidelines when evaluating whether fluoride posed an unreasonable risk to health. It was stipulated by both parties that there is no observable threshold indicating a “safe” dose of fluoride.
Dr. Grandjean made an extremely telling comment. He said “you only get one chance to develop a brain. Once it’s harmed there is nothing you can do.”
Dr. Brian Barridge who oversaw NTP’s report said after the trial that there was an ongoing attempt to modify the report to satisfy interested actors to obstruct its publication. NTP on its website said it removed the “hazard” classification of fluoride in response to comments made during the peer review process. The ADA (the American Dental Association) publicly pressured the NTP to exclude any neurological claims from the report.
The EPA repeatedly claimed that the plaintiff’s allegations about toxicity could not be verified because there was no systemic review. This ignores the fact that NTB’s report was, in fact, a systemic review!
The verdict and what’s ahead.
Judge Chen made a decision on 9/24/24 in which he said that the preponderance of the evidence indicated that there is an unreasonable risk associated with fluoride. He directed the EPA to do a risk assessment of the toxicity of fluoride. This put the EPA on notice. They couldn’t ignore his order. They had to respond.
However, they have 60 days to appeal which it is expected it will.
If the EPA does what they’re supposed to do based upon the job that they are paid to do by the American taxpayers, they should do a risk assessment of the toxicity of fluoride. If it determines it is toxic, it must ban its use in fluoridation of our water. Based upon past history, it’s expected that the EPA will resist and make every effort not to do their job.
It will be up to citizen activists to put some pressure on the EPA and local water system operators to get them to change the level of fluoride that they are adding to the drinking water. They will tell you that they cannot do that without guidance from the EPA or KDHE (Kansas Department of Health and Environment.) Until then they will maintain the status quo.
In light of this resistance to change, I have forwarded numerous informative articles to the people that have influence over water fluoridation. For the most part, they are ignoring this information and refusing to take any action. We cannot allow this to continue!
It is encouraging to see some support coming from various sources.
Some cities have ceased fluorinating their water. One of these is Austin, Texas.
Bobby Kennedy has indicated that he is opposed to fluoride in our drinking water and will act upon it when he’s the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
The Florida Surgeon General, Joseph Ladapo, has suggested that fluoridation cease in all water departments in Florida.
Although some progress has been made, the longer fluoridation continues the more our children will be harmed.
It is past time we stop putting a toxic chemical in our water!
