"I've never seen scientific
evidence discounted and refused to be looked at the way they're
doing with fluoride." - Jacqueline Warren, Natural
Resources Defense Council, November 25, 1985
"The EPA was pressured
by supporters of fluoride, however well-meaning, and by states
that would have to remove excess fluoride, to raise the standard
to a level that now borders on unsafe, according to EPA's own
scientific review. EPA's actions were not driven by science, but
by political pressure from supporters of fluoride."
- Journal of the Academy of General
Dentistry, February 1987
"Up to now EPA, under
the Safe Drinking Water Act, has regulated fluoride in order to
prevent children from having teeth which looked like they had
been chewing brown shoe polish and rocks... EPA in response to
new studies, which only confirmed the old studies, and some flat
out political preasure, has decided to raise the standard to 4
mg/L. This increase will allow 40% of all children to have teeth
gross enough to gag a maggot." - Paul
Price, EPA Drinking Water Analyst, October 31, 1985.
"This whole thing is politics.
You're not talking science at all."
- Dr. Robert Carton, President
of EPA Headquarters Union, November 25, 2005
BRIEF HISTORY of EPA's FLUORIDE SAFETY STANDARD:
Because of fluoride's ability to harm human health, the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates the amount
of fluoride
that can be legally present in drinking water.
In 1975, following passage of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA), EPA promulgated a Maximum Contaminant
Level (MCL) for fluoride of 1.4-2.4 ppm. EPA issued the MCL in
order to prevent children from developing advanced forms of dental
fluorosis (a brown and and black discoloration
of teeth with pitting and cracking of the enamel).
Because of the costs involved in removing fluoride from water,
EPA's decision to issue an enforceable standard for fluoride caused
a backlash from states (e.g. South Carolina) with high-fluoride
areas. The decision also angered the pro-fluoride
dental lobby, which believed EPA's regulation of fluoride
as a contaminant would interfere with its promotion
of water fluoridation (0.7-1.2 ppm) as a cavities
prevention program.
The majority of the medical panels consulted by EPA concluded
that advanced dental fluorosis is an adverse
health effect which should be prevented by enforceable regulations
no greater than 2.4 ppm - a view
shared by most EPA professionals
working on the standard.
EPA Administrators, however, under significant legal pressure
from the State of South Carolina, rejected the advice of the medical
panels and, in 1985, issued a new
MCL (4 ppm) for fluoride which would allow up
to 40% of children to develop advanced
dental fluorosis.
EPA's decision to weaken the MCL drew intense criticism from
the Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC), which - in 1986 - took the EPA to Court
to challenge the new standard. As noted
by an NRDC lawyer at the time, the EPA was "changing the
[fluoride] standard for reasons that have nothing to do with science."
In addition to NRDC's concern that EPA unjustifiably
altered its definition of dental fluorosis, NRDC was also
concerned
that EPA had inadequately examined the evidence indicating other
toxic effects from fluoride at levels below 4 ppm. (Much of
the research EPA used to defend its
new 4 ppm standard came directly from industry-funded
scientists.)
The NRDC was not alone in its criticism of the Agency's decision.
In an unusual and unprecedented
move, a Union of EPA scientists
and professionals voted to join the NRDC it its suit against
the EPA. A court, however, later ruled that the group of EPA scientists
were prohibited from entering
the suit against their own Agency.
While NRDC's suit against EPA was
ultimately rejected by the Court (due to the broad deference afforded
to EPA administrators in rulemaking matters) EPA's safety standard
remains highly controversial
today - 20 years after it was first enacted.
Current controversy over EPA's safe water standard has been fueled,
in part, by EPA's use of the standard in a recent
decision to give DOW
AgroSciences approval to spray a new fluoride-based
fumigant on a wide series of foods prepared in the US.
