BNN. In a landmark trial, the Fluoride Action Network challenges EPA water fluoridation policies, spotlighting potential neurodevelopmental risks for fetuses and children. The trial scrutinizes expert testimonies, including the EPA’s primary witness, David Savitz, and raises concerns about conflicts of interest.

In a landmark trial, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) challenges the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) policies on water fluoridation. The case, brought forth by advocacy groups including Food & Water Watch, spotlights potential neurodevelopmental risks, particularly for fetuses and children. The trial resumed after a pause, focusing on expert testimonies regarding safe fluoride thresholds and risks to vulnerable populations.

Landmark Trial Challenges EPA's Water Fluoridation Policies Amidst Neurodevelopmental Concerns

David Savitz: EPA’s Key Witness Under Scrutiny

David Savitz, the EPA’s primary witness, downplayed the link between fluoride and lower IQ in children. Paid over $137,000 by the EPA, Savitz faced cross-examination questioning his lack of fluoride research experience and potential conflicts of interest. The trial highlighted concerns about the NTP report findings and the uncertainty surrounding fluoride’s effects at current levels of water fluoridation.

Industry Insiders Reveal Bombshell Information

In the latest episode of the Free Thought Project podcast, Derrick Broze, Founder and Editor-in-Chief of the Conscious Resistance Network, shared startling insights from industry insiders. Broze, covering the trial in San Francisco, revealed potential ties to Harvard and implicated high levels of government in the contentious issue of water fluoridation.

Health Benefits and Ethical Dilemmas

The potential health benefits of ending water fluoridation are at the forefront of this trial, as advocacy groups argue for new guidelines for safe exposure limits. The ethics of public health policies are called into question, urging us to reconsider the implications of today’s news for tomorrow’s world.

As the trial unfolds, it brings to light the complexity of balancing public health and individual safety. The outcome could potentially impact the regulation of fluoride in drinking water, setting a precedent for future policies and safe exposure limits.

By delving into the intricate details of this ongoing trial, we can better understand the human element behind the headlines. As the story continues to unfold, it serves as a reminder that the decisions made today will shape the world we inhabit tomorrow.

Original article online at