Fluoride Action Network

Important Lawsuit Updates, Including A New Hearing Date.

December 13th, 2022


Yesterday we raised $726 from 14 donors. This will be doubled to $1,452 thanks to the $10,000 doubling-pledge made by a “super angel” donor last Friday. This brings our new total to $26,531from 138 donors on our way to our goal of raising $180,000 from 1000 supporters by midnight on December 31st.

Donations will continue to have double the impact! The next $7,407 donated will be doubled! 

Thank you to all who have made a donation towards our 2023 budget and campaign funds. Our work will be especially important this year as FAN will need to bring as much attention as possible to our lawsuit in federal court. And once we have a victory, it will be up to FAN to make sure federal, state, and local decision makers and regulators are aware of the ruling and prepared to end fluoridation as quickly as possible. We can’t wait for the EPA to act at their pace. The health of too many people, including developing children, is at risk every additional day this practice continues.

Fluoride Action Network, PO Box 85, North Sutton, NH 03260

Dear Friends:

We have several important updates on our federal TSCA trial against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Mark Your Calendars

The next status hearing has been rescheduled. It has been pushed back two days and will now take place on Thursday, January 12th at 11:00AM (U.S. Pacific Time) / 2:00PM (U.S. Eastern Time).

The public can watch the proceedings live via Zoom, and we absolutely recommend you do, because this could be a very important hearing where the timeline of the last phase of the trial is decided.

Save this link to watch the next hearing live via Zoom:

Webinar ID: 161 991 1861
Password: 912881

**Click here for numbers to access the hearing by phone.

Like the last status hearing in October, the proceedings will be recorded by the Court, but the public still cannot legally record the hearing themselves, per court rules. The Court has yet to make the video from the October hearing available to the public, but they’ve communicated to us that it will eventually be released. As soon as it’s available we’ll share it with you. Please stay tuned.

FAN will also send out another reminder for this hearing as we get closer to January 12th, and will send out a summary of what took place to our email list and supporters on social media for those who cannot attend.


For the past two years, the Court has been waiting for the final publication of the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) review on fluoride’s neurotoxicity. After going through multiple unprecedented peer-reviews by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), the final draft was expected to be made public in May of 2022, however it was never published and instead sent for a fourth “review.” During the October hearing the Court granted our motion to end the stay on the trial, and put a protective order on the NTP report, urging attorneys from both parties to do whatever was necessary to provide the May NTP report to the Court so the trial could move forward.

This past week, the Department of Justice–who is representing the EPA–turned over the NTP report. Because it’s currently under protective order, its contents can only be viewed by the Court, the legal parties (plaintiffs, defendants, and attorneys), and experts providing testimony and analysis.

This is great news because it means the Court now has what it has been waiting over two years for. It also means that the Court is likely to make a decision at our next status hearing on the timing of the last phase of the trial, instead of being delayed further by having to force the EPA to hand over the document using subpoenas or a motion to compel.

The Most Recent Ruling In Writing

The Court Order granting our October motion to lift the stay on the trial and take the case out of abeyance is now available to the public. Read It Here.

In the written order the Court notes:

“…as of today, the circumstances no longer support awaiting the final publication of the NTP review.”

This language makes clear that the Court intends to move forward with the trial rather than waiting for the NTP to publish their report. While the Court states it may re-assess this if there is a compelling argument for delay by the Director of the NTP at the next status hearing, the Court’s comment suggests that the NTP report will now need to have a clear, definite, and timely public release in order to be part of the case.”

There’s another significant victory in the order. The Court also commented in our favor in regard to the claim made by the EPA that we lacked standing due to the Plaintiffs not including a developing child potentially harmed by fluoridation:

“… Since the stay was imposed, one of the Plaintiffs, Jessica Trader, became pregnant with her first child in December 2020 and plans to have several more children. Docket No. 279-1 ¶¶ 40–45. Ms. Trader’s pregnancy satisfies Article III standing. Article III standing requires three elements:

(1) an injury-in-fact that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, (2) a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, and (3) probable redressability. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992). Here, the neurodevelopmental harm from fluoride exposure to Ms. Trader’s child and future children is concrete and imminent; there is a credible causal connection between that neurodevelopmental harm and EPA’s regulation of fluoride exposure or lack thereof; and the harm would likely be redressed if EPA were to pass a rule prohibiting the addition of fluoridation chemicals to public drinking water supplies. Indeed, EPA has not since filed any motion to dismiss for lack of standing and previously conceded that standing would be satisfied by “someone who is an expectant parent who—who could be consuming fluoridated water, and, and—that could have potential effects on the baby she’s carrying in utero. It could be a potential—a parent, someone with very young children.” Docket No. 133 at 14:9–17. [Plaintiffs have] satisfactorily addressed the Court’s questions regarding standing such that a stay is no longer warranted based on standing concerns.

For more information on the TSCA trial, please visit our dedicated webpage, where you will find an overview of the case and a menu bar that will bring you to fact sheets, the key studies, a lawsuit timeline, media coverage, and much more.  You can also search for the hashtag #FluorideLawsuit on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

Thank you,

Stuart Cooper

Executive Director

Fluoride Action Network