This afternoon, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) notified the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California that they plan to appeal the federal court ruling that water fluoridation “poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children.” The notice from the EPA did not offer an explanation or justification for their decision, which was made only three days before a new EPA administrator and presidential administration enters office. So far, the EPA has also chosen not to respond or make a statement to media outlets.

It’s important to note that the EPA’s decision has no binding effect on the incoming administration and EPA administrator, who could independently assess the ruling and the science behind it and choose not to pursue an appeal. This could happen as soon as day one of the new administration. 

The decision is a continuation of the EPA’s reluctance to admit they have failed to protect the public adequately from this pollutant for over 50 years. During the fluoride trial, the EPA showed that they view fluoridation chemicals as a protected pollutant when it was revealed that they radically departed from their own guidelines when assessing the hazard fluoridation poses. The court gave the EPA a second chance to properly assess the neurotoxic side effects of fluoridation, but they failed to do so.

Throughout the trial, the EPA continuously filed motions in an attempt to slow and prolong the proceedings. They also opposed the court’s resumption of the trial in 2024, asking for further delay after the trial had already been in abeyance for several years waiting for the National Toxicology Program’s systematic review of fluoride neurotoxicity. The NTP’s report was censored in 2022 by the U.S. Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary Admiral Rachel Levine at the behest of the dental-lobby and those regulators they could influence. 

These attempts by outgoing EPA and HHS administrators to delay and obstruct the creation of rules protecting the public will only result in harm to hundreds of thousands of additional children, particularly those whose families are unable to afford expensive reverse osmosis or distillation filtration of their tap water. As the court stated, over 200 million U.S. residents, including 2 million pregnant women and 300,000 exclusively bottle fed infants are exposed to fluoridated water on a daily basis.

Lead attorney for FAN and our co-plaintiffs in the case, Michael Connett, stated:

“The EPA has just announced it will be appealing the Court’s order which requires the EPA to take regulatory action to protect the public from fluoridation’s neurological risks. This is part of EPA’s longstanding pattern of ducking its head in the sand and avoiding any action that would challenge the fossilized status quo on fluoride.

It is important, however, to note that EPA’s decision today has no binding effect on the incoming administration. It can undo this decision on day one, or anytime thereafter.

The Court’s order provides the new administration a clear legal pathway to ban fluoridation, which would bring the US in line with the vast majority of Europe. 

As Europe has long recognized, there are far safer and more effective ways of using fluoride for dental health than adding it to everyone’s tap water.”

To protect future generations of Americans, the incoming administration can and should independently review the research on fluoridation and give incoming regulators who aren’t captured by special interests the opportunity to reconsider this decision.