Excerpts. Read the full article online at http://learn.eartheasy.com/2017/07/still-need-fluoride-drinking-water/
With mounting evidence that topical fluoride is better for teeth, a case before a California court aims to end water fluoridation across the U.S.
… Anti-fluoride activists have been campaigning for years to have fluoridation guidelines re-evaluated. A case currently before a U.S. District Court in California aims to end the practice of fluoridating two-thirds of American water supplies.
… Late in 2016 a coalition of groups including Food and Water Watch, The American Academy of Environmental Medicine, Fluoride Action Network, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Moms against Fluoridation, and several private citizens filed a petition with the EPA calling for a ban on the addition of fluoridation chemicals to drinking water supplies. The EPA turned down the petition, claiming it did “not set forth a scientifically defensible basis to conclude that any persons have suffered neurotoxic harm as a result of exposure to fluoride in the U.S. through the purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to drinking water or otherwise from fluoride exposure in the U.S.”
The coalition has brought the complaint to the U.S District Court in Northern California for an independent de novo review. The court will be asked to assess whether fluoridation of water indeed presents an “unreasonable risk,” and can compel the EPA to ban the addition of fluoride to public drinking water. Michael Connett, legal counsel for the plaintiffs, explains that, “if the EPA applies its own risk assessment procedures to fluoride, it would recognize the potential for harm from fluoridated water.” Moreover, Connett points to “recent epidemiological data showing little or no difference [in caries incidence] in fluoridated vs. unfluoridated communities.” Though there have been some conflicting studies showing declines in rates of dental decay, Connett points out that “the magnitude of benefit” is small and needs to be weighed against the potential harm.
“…widely dispersing a neurotoxin throughout the environment can have devastating unintended consequences and warrants protective action sooner rather than later.” -Michael Connett
Print 
PDF