Fluorine is represented on the periodic table with the symbol “F” and Fluorine is toxic. Despite Fluorine’s known properties as a dangerous gas, public health has promoted its use in fluoridated drinking water and dental products for 75 years. A recent federal court ruled that fluoride is a neurotoxin and lowers IQ. How did our health agencies and health experts fail to protect the public for so long? Was fluoride “science” written by dental lobbyists? Colorado Department of Health and Environment (CDPHE) disagrees with the court ruling and preponderance of evidence and plans to keep the neurotoxin in drinking water. This article will provide you with information to take action on the local level.
Federal court decided fluoride is a neurotoxin
On September 24, 2024, after a 7-year legal battle in federal court, United States District Court of the Northern District of California ordered the EPA to take action to eliminate the “unreasonable risk” to the health of children posed by the practice of water fluoridation.
As reported by Fluoride Action Network:
“The issue before this Court is whether the Plaintiffs have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the fluoridation of drinking water at levels typical in the United States poses an unreasonable risk of injury to health of the public within the meaning of Amended TSCA. For the reasons set forth below, the Court so finds. Specifically, the Court finds that fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligrams per liter (“mg/L”) – the level presently considered “optimal” in the United States – poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children…the Court finds there is an unreasonable risk of such injury, a risk sufficient to require the EPA to engage with a regulatory response…One thing the EPA cannot do, however, in the face of this Court’s finding, is to ignore that risk.”
In an historic and unprecedented legal strategy, watchdogs were able to bypass the EPA and have judicial review of the evidence of fluoride’s neurotoxicity. As explained by Fluoride Action Network:
“Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976, a group of non-profits and individuals petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2016 to end the addition of fluoridation chemicals into U.S. drinking water due to fluoride’s neurotoxicity. The EPA rejected the petition. In response the groups sued the EPA in Federal Court in 2017. Evidence on fluoride’s neurotoxicity was heard by the Court in two phases: a 7-day trial in June 2020, and a 14-day trial in February 2024.”
If you already know about the risks of fluoride, keep reading because there is a brilliant strategy involved that will set a precedent for legal scrutiny of other neurotoxic recommendations from public health and consumer products. According to the Fluoride Action Network press release:
“This is the first time a citizen’s petition has gone to trial, and it’s the first time a citizen group has won a trial against EPA under TSCA Section 21. Our case and our victory will undoubtedly create opportunities for citizen and environmental watchdog groups to use the same blueprint as FAN in the future to force the EPA to adequately regulate chemicals that pose an unreasonable risk to public health.
This trial was also the first time citizen groups have successfully obtained a full objective review of the science on fluoridation, in a courtroom, with experts under oath, under TSCA’s provisions that create a level playing field between the citizen groups and the EPA defending a chemical. Under most statutes, when citizens sue a federal agency, the courts give deference to the views of the agency. But in this lawsuit, under a special provision of TSCA, the court does not give deference to the EPA. Congress specifically added this level playing field because it recognized EPA can be too slow to address harmful chemical exposures.”
CDC, ADA, AAP Fail to Protect the Public
In response to this federal court ruling, public health is in lockstep to keep fluoride in drinking water. Both the American Dental Association (ADA) and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) have “reaffirmed support for optimal community water fluoridation as safe, effective, and essential to the protection of the public’s health” per CDPHE’s Statement on Community Water Fluoridation, October 14, 2024. Does “safe and effective” sound like a marketing mantra when the preponderance of evidence does not support such claims?
As CDPHE stands in firm support of fluoridation on the state level, CDPHE claims that “cavities are the leading chronic disease among children and adults.” Yikes, apparently CDPHE is unaware that the autism rate is 1 in 36 U.S. children in 2024, which is by definition an epidemic with an exponential rise since 1990, which can only be attributed to an environmental toxin. Yet, CDPHE chooses to prioritize cavities, which are preventable and do not lower IQ or require a lifetime of support. Who can convince CDPHE to update their priorities from 1950 to 2024? If autism had a multi-million dollar lobbying group like the ADA and AAP, then maybe priorities would change.
As reported in the The Defender, a Cochrane Review, which published a systematic review of 157 studies on water fluoridation and cavities, concluded that adding fluoride to drinking water provides minimal effect on dental health. The Cochrane Review cited with low certainty that fluoridated water might reduce cavities by 2%, while the ADA insists fluoride causes a 25% reduction in cavities. A ostensible reduction of dental cavities does not outweigh loss of IQ, with “a decrement of even one IQ point translates to a 2 percent reduction in lifetime economic productivity (roughly $20,000)” per Environmental Health News.
According the The Defender, the ADA and AAP do not agree with the National Toxicology Program (NTP), numerous National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded studies, and a federal court ruling stating the risks of water fluoridation outweigh the alleged benefits. Public health would like the public to think that the risks of fluoride are “misinformation.” Based on the pandemic response of public health, the public must decide whose opinion is still relevant: agencies or watchdogs. Is it probable that the ADA and AAP are primarily lobbying organizations to sell products such as fluoride and vaccines respectively, regardless of safety and efficacy? Is it likely that CDPHE is captured by these lobbying organizations who portray themselves as the experts?
The CDC has not made a statement about the federal court ruling on the “unreasonable risks” of fluoridation and reduced IQ in children, but the CDC has quietly changed its website from supporting fluoridation to shifting responsibility to towns, cities, and voters. As a public health watchdog for the past 20 years, I have never witnessed the CDC admit their policies often violate the ethics of “do no harm,” so this silence from the CDC might be the closest the public gets to an admission of malfeasance.
How Can Public Health Experts Be Wrong for 75 Years?
Dr. Linda Birnbaum demonstrates how the smartest people in public health, who have served a lifetime in federal agencies at top positions, can promote toxins like fluoride during their entire careers and then suddenly change their minds during a citizen filed lawsuit.
Birnbaum is a board-certified toxicologist and microbiologist, who served as a federal scientist for 40 years. Birnbaum was director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) from 2009 to 2019. Prior to her appointment at NIH, she spent 19 years at the EPA, where she directed the largest division on environmental health research.
The first phase of the fluoride trial was in June of 2020, and then in October of 2020, Birnbaum co-authored an Op-Ed titled “It is time to protect kid’s developing brains from fluoride.” In this Op-Ed, Birnbaum declares that the preponderance of research shows that fluoride causes cognitive developmental hazard to humans, and that children who were exposed to higher amounts of fluoride during early brain development scored about 3 to 7 points lower on their IQ tests. Birnbaum also states that fluoride has some benefits in topical applications in toothpaste, but no benefits if ingested. She urges pregnant women to limit their consumption of sugar, which is the leading cause of tooth decay (not the lack of fluoride.) In a more recent video, Birnbaum states there is no evidence that fluoride prevents cavities and advises pregnant women not to drink fluoridated water nor to use it in infant formula due to risk of developmental neurotoxicity. Birnbaum states that we do not need fluoride in drinking water. She makes a vague reference to the dental lobby and politics for the promotion of fluoridated water.
Is it conceivable that I have known that fluoride is toxic for the past 20 years just based on the periodic table, but the top toxicologist in the U.S. just figured it out? No. It seems that Birnbaum is trying to save face for all the captured federal health agencies who never expected the citizen-initiated fluoride trial to have an opportunity for judicial review after the EPA denied the original petition to remove fluoride.
Public health gets even more irresponsibly dysfunctional at the state level. CDPHE has taken the position that Colorado does not need to remove fluoride from drinking water at the current amount. This is the equivalent of saying that having some lead in drinking water is beneficial. CDPHE acknowledges that high fluoride concentration has risks (defined as 1.5 mg/L), but does not comment on cumulative effect of slightly lower fluoride concentrations at 0.7 mg/L. CDPHE does not address that some people could be receiving a higher dose of fluoride in their water based on the flow of water delivery systems or the individual’s rate of consumption of water. CDPHE did not offer to provide data on the IQ differences of people with fluoridated water and non-fluoridated water. CDPHE makes no distinction between the natural form of calcium fluoride, and the chemical sodium fluoride which is used in drinking water and requires hazardous material (hazmat) protocols. CDPHE immediately declared to county level boards of health that it can ignore this federal court decision and take no actions to mitigate risk, while citing a long list of lobbyist organizations who support fluoride.
Murray Rothbard wrote an excellent summary of the health harms of fluoridated water which were documented in the beginning of the program back in 1945, along with a brief history of the original lobbyists for fluoridated water in the aluminum industry. But in the larger view of “Forced Fluoridation,” he points out that the fluoride program was supported by politicians who were proponents of forced medicalization and socialized medicine. The rationale of yesteryear for water fluoridation was based in “equity,” while the water fluoridation program places a financial burden on families needing to buy expensive water filtration systems to remove it.
Citizens in Fort Collins Are Advocating for the End of Fluoridated Water
Concerned citizens in Fort Collins have been presenting information about the new federal court ruling to both city and county leaders as well as the local Board of Health (BOH) and the Water Quality Services Division. The Director of Sciences for the Water Quality Services Division, Leslie Hill, responded to the information by stating that, “Our plan regarding this ruling is to continue fluoridating at 0.7 mg/L until direction is received from Council, EPA, or CDPHE to do otherwise. We are waiting for additional guidance from CDPHE, which we anticipate will be released soon.” As previously referenced, CDPHE released a statement on October 14, 2024, disregarding the federal court ruling. Colorado Public Health has made a unilateral decision, without the required stakeholder engagement process inclusive of citizens, to endanger public health.
There are municipalities which do not add fluoride to water, and there are municipalities which are immediately removing fluoride from their water out of caution for the health of their citizens. It is very strange that Fort Collins, where the son of Linda Birnbaum lives and sits on the local Board of Health (BOH), is making no apparent move to protect the citizens it serves. In fact, after being presented with the information about the federal court ruling and presented with Bernie Birnbaum’s own mother’s expert opinion at the last Larimer County BOH meeting on October 17, Bernie Birnbaum stated that no one on the board is an expert, so further study would be needed to be able to make any recommendations. What possible further study do they need before they would make a recommendation to stop the addition of fluoride to the water?
Take Action (Suggestions From Advocates)
Policymakers at the local and state level do not need to wait on the EPA guidance (which could take years) to take action. The federal government does not mandate fluoridation, and thus local and state decision makers can stop fluoridation immediately. As reported by The Defender, several cities have already halted water fluoridation.
It is important that water departments, local officials, and media outlets in every fluoridated community are notified of the federal court ruling immediately, especially when the state health department has taken a position against the preponderance of evidence. Children in these communities are being harmed by fluoride, without the knowledge of their parents. You can request a public health education campaign in your community. You can also opt out of all dental products which contain fluoride.
Please take some time to look up the contact information for your 1) water department and county board of health, 2) your local city council members and county commissioners, 3) your state legislator and state senator, and 4) media outlets in your community. Send each an email asking for them to urgently read the following:
The Fluoride Action Network’s press release:
https://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/PDF2-TSCA-Victory-press-release-1.pdf
The full federal court ruling:
https://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Court-Ruling.pdf
Contact Pati Thomas if you want to get involved in ending fluoridation in Colorado:
Original article online at: https://kimmonson.com/featured_articles/fluoride-is-the-new-f-word-in-public-health/