LAW360. EXCERPT. A Harvard epidemiologist testifying Friday in a high-stakes bench trial over fluoridated water’s risks criticized a study cited by the government that found fluoride exposure increases IQ by 24 points, saying the results “don’t make sense,” are “beyond the imagination” and must be based on erroneous data.

Danish epidemiologist Philippe Grandjean’s comments came on the third day of a two-week bench trial in San Francisco before U.S. District Judge Edward Chen, for litigation first launched by Food & Water Watch Inc., the Fluoride Action Network and others against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2017.

The suit seeks to force the EPA to make a new federal rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act that would ban fluoride from being added to drinking water. Local municipalities have added fluoride to the water for decades to boost public dental hygiene and prevent dental decay.

Grandjean, who is an adjunct professor at Harvard University and chair of environmental medicine at the University of Southern Denmark, first took the stand Thursday, testifying that he reviewed more than 70 animal and human studies from around the world to conclude there is “definitely a causal relationship” between fluoride exposure and neurotoxicity, even at low exposure levels. He also agreed with other professors who testified before him that prenatal exposure can cause drops in IQ scores.

Grandjean’s direct examination continued Friday morning, with the witness criticizing one study cited by the EPA that found fluoride exposure increased IQ scores in boys by 24 points. Although Grandjean said he knows at least one researcher who authored the study, he said the results “don’t make sense” and it’s “beyond my imagination that this is a true finding.”

“There must be an error,” he said.

He added he has never seen a “swing” of 15 points one way or another with fluoride exposure.

Grandjean’s direct examination finished with the witness also criticizing the EPA for primarily focusing on the high levels of fluoride exposure that make bones brittle instead of focusing on the potential neurotoxic effects of low levels of exposure, which he noted the agency does with other known neurotoxins like mercury and lead.

“There has been a hesitation to consider neurotoxicity,” he said… But it hasn’t been considered in the U.S. I would think that the EPA would consider this a critical effect.”

During Grandjean’s cross-examination, the EPA’s counsel tried to pick apart his conclusions by asking specific questions about various studies he analyzed to support his conclusion that fluoride is neurotoxic. …

The line of questioning at times drew exasperation from Grandjean, who repeatedly responded to the attorney by saying his questions were irrelevant.

When the EPA attorney tried to get Grandjean to concede that the animal studies he analyzed don’t support the finding that fluoride exposure causes drops in IQ, Grandjean replied bluntly, “You can’t measure IQ in a rat.”

“Clearly, you have to live with the fact that fluoride can enter the brain and cause changes in the body, and that’s plenty for our purposes of looking at this for causal association,” Grandjean added.

Grandjean also disagreed with the EPA attorney’s suggestion that the primary focus in the risk analysis should be on small doses of fluoride exposure and not higher levels, since the average amount of fluoride in U.S. water supplies is 0.7 milligrams per liter.

“I would say there’s no reason in the dose-response relationship to select different levels and say, ‘Oh, we don’t have definite proof,'” Grandjean said. “I don’t think it’s relevant to our dose-response discussion whether 1.5 mg/L or 0.7 mg/L are particular points of deviation, when as far as we know there is a linear relationship to the fluoride exposure and neurotoxicity.” …

–Editing by Caitlin Wolper.

Original article online at https://www.law360.com/articles/1793411/harvard-prof-slams-study-showing-iq-gains-from-fluoride?copied=1

Print PDF