Fluoride Action Network

Government Reports & FAN Submissions

FAN's compilation of official reports from the US, EU, WHO, UN, Australia, Canada, Ireland, NZ, and the UK. The majority of FAN's submissions to various government agencies over the years are also included.

THE TSCA LAW SUIT (2016-present)

Table 1 are the submissions entered into the law suit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Section 21 of the Toxic Control Substances Act (TSCA) by the Fluoride Action Network, Food & Water Watch, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Moms Against Fluoridation, Organic Consumers Association, and various individuals (see * The Petitioners below).

See also

• The Timeline of the TSCA law suit below.

News articles relating to law suit

Table 1: Submissions

DATE ABOUT TITLE
February 7, 2018 TSCA Petition:
The court ruled: “The EPA moves for a protective order limiting the scope of review in this litigation to the administrative record1, a request that would effectively foreclose Plaintiffs from introducing any evidence in this litigation that was not attached to their administrative petition. The text of the TSCA, its structure, its purpose, and the legislative history make clear that Congress did not intend to impose such a limitation in judicial review of Section 21 citizen petitions. The Court therefore DENIES the EPA?s motion.
Order Denying Defendant’s (EPA) Motion to Limit Review to the Administrative Record
January 18, 2018 TSCA Petition:
EPA response to each (107) paragraph in FAN et al’s “Complaint” of April 18, 2017, concluding: “Except as expressly admitted or otherwise stated herein, EPA denies each and every allegation in Plaintiff’s Complaint.”
The Defendant, EPA, “Answer” to FAN et al’s “Complaint of Fluoride’s harm submitted April 18, 2017.
January 15, 2018 TSCA Petition:
EPA’s “further support of their motion for a protective order limiting review to the administrative record.”
Federal Defendant’s Reply in Further Support of Motion to Limit Review to Administrative Record.
January 5, 2018 TSCA Petition:
FAN et al’s opposition to EPA’s motion to the court for a sweeping order that would exempt this “civil action” from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) and deny Plaintiffs their right to discovery.
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the Federal Defendants’ Motion to Limit Review to the Administrative Record and to Strike Plaintiffs’ Jury Demand
January 5, 2018 TSCA Petition:
NRDC opposes EPA’s motion to limit petitioner’s right to discovery. They state, “To the contrary, the language, structure, and history of section 21 all support the district court’s consideration of new evidence.”
[Proposed] Amicus Curiae Brief of Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families in Response to EPA’s Motion to Limit Review (Supporting Neither Party on the Merits)
December 21, 2017 TSCA Petition:
Court rules in our favor and denies EPA’s Motion to Dismiss.
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS Docket No. 28
December 14, 2017 TSCA PETITION:
EPA requests court for “a protective order limiting review to the administrative record and an order striking Plaintiffs’ Jury Demand.”
Federal Defendants’ Notice of Motion and Motion to Limit Review to the Administrative Record and to Strike Plaintiffs’ Jury Demand
October 25, 2017 TSCA Petition:
NRDC Amicus Curiae Brief in support of FAN et al’s challenge to EPA on Section 21 of TSCA.
[Proposed] Amicus Curiae Brief of Natural Resources Defense Council and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families in Support of Neither Party
October 25, 2017 TSCA Petition:
FAN et al. response to EPA’s rejection of Petition.
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Motion to Dismiss
September 25, 2017 TSCA Petition:
Motion to Dismiss FAN et al. Petition by the Department of Justice, on behalf of the EPA.
Federal Defendants’ Noticice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss.
April 18, 2017 TSCA Petition: Response to  U.S. EPA’s rejection of Petition Complaint to United States District Court for the Northerv District of California at San Francisco
February 27, 2017 TSCA Petition:
EPA’s Rejection of FAN et al. Petition. Federal Register. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2016–0763; FRL–9959–74]
TSCA Section 21 Petition; Reasons for
Agency Response.
November 22, 2016 TSCA Petition:
Petition to the U.S. EPA to ban fluoridation due to fluoride’s neurotoxicity, submitted by Fluoride Action Network, Food & Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Moms Against Fluoridation, and undersigned individuals.
Petition under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”), 15 U.S.C. § 2620, to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy.

Timeline of Lawsuit Against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):

November 22, 2016: Fluoride Action Network (FAN), together with a coalition of environmental, medical and health groups, collectively known as the “Petitioners” (see *below), served the EPA with a Petition calling on the Agency to ban the addition of fluoridation chemicals to public water supplies due to the risks these chemicals pose to the brain. The Petition was submitted under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) because it authorizes EPA to prohibit the “particular use” of a chemical that presents an unreasonable risk to the general public or susceptible subpopulations. TSCA also gives EPA the authority to prohibit drinking water additives.

February 27, 2017: EPA denied the TSCA Section 21 Petition. Read their reasons here. In their decision the EPA claimed, “The petition has 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.”

April 18, 2017: FAN et al.’s response to EPA’s rejection of Petition.

September 25, 2017: Motion to Dismiss FAN et al. Petition by the Department of Justice, on behalf of the EPA.

October 25, 2017: FAN et al. response to EPA’s rejection of Petition.

October 25, 2017: Amicus Curiae Brief of the Natural Resources Defense Council and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families in Support of Neither Party. Their brief against EPA’s basis to dismiss our section 21 Petition focused on EPA’s unacceptable demand: “must evaluate all of a chemical’s conditions of use”

November 30, 2017: Hearing with arguments from both parties. Michael Connett, JD, put forward the arguments of why EPA’s Motion to Dismiss should be denied.

December 21, 2017: Court rules in our favor and denies EPA’s Motion to Dismiss.

December 14, 2017:  The EPA requests court for “a protective order limiting review to the administrative record and an order striking Plaintiffs’ Jury Demand.”

January 5, 2018: FAN et al. submitted a brief in opposition to EPA’s motion to the court for a sweeping order that would exempt this “civil action” from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) and deny Plaintiffs their right to discovery.

January 5, 2018: The National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) submitted an Amicus Curiae Brief in opposition to EPA’s motion to limit petitioner’s right to discovery. They state, “To the contrary, the language, structure, and history of section 21 all support the district court’s consideration of new evidence.” The NRDC involvement supports neither party on the merits of the case.

January 15, 2018: The U.S. EPA’s Reply “in Further Support of Motion to Limit Review to Administrative Record.”

January 18, 2018: The EPA’s “Answer” to FAN et al’s “Complaint” of Fluoride’s harm submitted on April 18, 2017.

 

* The Petitioners:
Fluoride Action Network
Food & Water Watch
American Academy of Environmental Medicine
International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology
Moms Against Fluoridation
Organic Consumers Association
And Individuals:
Audrey Adams, a resident of Renton, WA (individually and on behalf of her son),
Jacqueline Denton, a resident of Asheville, NC (individually and on behalf of her children),
Valerie Green , a resident of Silver Spring, MD (individually and on behalf of her children),
Kristin Lavelle, a resident of Berkeley, CA (individually and on behalf of her son),
Brenda Staudenmaier from Green Bay, WI (individually and on behalf of her children)

back to top