The campaign to ban fluoride in drinking water — where it can protect teeth from decay but may also damage the mental development of newborn children — appears to have taken a step forward in a San Francisco federal court this week.
After seven years of litigation and a pair of non
jury trials, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen ruled Tuesday that the maximum fluoride concentration the government allows in water consumed by 200 million Americans, 0.7 milligrams per liter of water, poses an “unreasonable risk” to children and must be reduced. He did not specify the amount of reduction, leaving the initial decision to the Environmental Protection Agency.
But anti-fluoridation advocates who filed the suit in 2017 said Thursday that the ruling moves them closer to their ultimate goal.
“The court has ordered EPA to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to come up with a new regulation that will restrict or eliminate the risk posed by fluoridation chemicals to the developing brain,” Stuart Cooper, executive director of the Fluoride Action Network, told the Chronicle. “The solution is simple: ban the use of fluoride nationwide.”
A similar assessment came from Michael Connett, attorney for Cooper’s group and others including Food and Water Watch, Moms Against Fluoridation and the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, an organization of dentists and doctors who contend fluoride in water provides little or no dental protection.
“When an unreasonable risk is identified, the (federal) statute commands that EPA enact a rule that will eliminate the risk,” Connett said. “We believe the only effective way for EPA to accomplish this objective is by prohibiting the addition of fluoride chemicals to water.”
The suit drew supporting arguments from the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental organization that wants a reduction of fluoride levels in drinking water but does not favor a ban. Eric Olson, a health director for the group, said it has been trying unsuccessfully to get the EPA to tighten the standard since the 1980s, and was joined by the National Academy of Sciences in 2006.
The ruling “will be helpful in trying to get the EPA to take action where the agency has been slow to address (complaints) or hasn’t moved at all,” Olson said. He said the case also illustrates the benefits of the Toxic Substances Control Act, a federal law that allows advocates to go to court if the EPA fails to adequately regulate hazardous substances and requires the judge to give equal weight to opposing sides rather than deferring to the agency.
EPA spokesperson Jeff Landis said the agency was reviewing the ruling and “will consider all options,” which could include an appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
“From day one, this administration has taken actions to protect people’s health that follow the science and the law,” Landis said in a statement. “EPA staff includes some of the best experts and scientists in the world and they will be crucial to whatever next steps the agency takes.”
The federal government authorized state and local agencies to fluoridate their drinking water 75 years ago after research indicated the chemical reduced tooth decay.
Every state except Hawaii has authorized water fluoridation by cities and counties, although a number of cities have prohibited it, including Portland, Ore., Albuquerque, N.M., and Wichita, Kan. In California, bans have been imposed in Davis, Cotati, Gridley (Butte County) and Plumas Lake (Butte County), and the tribal community of Hoopa Valley (Humboldt County).
The anti-fluoridation movement has been joined in recent years by some members of the medical community who contend the chemical can protect teeth when applied directly, as in toothpaste, but may do more harm than good when added to tap water.
The opposing sides in the suit — including EPA officials under both Presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden — presented conflicting studies on whether the currently authorized level of fluoride in drinking water is safe. Chen, an appointee of President Barack Obama, said in his ruling that the government is failing to adequately protect the public.
“There is substantial and scientifically credible evidence establishing that fluoride poses a risk to human health,” the judge wrote. “It is associated with a reduction in the IQ of children and is hazardous at dosages that are far too close to fluoride levels in the drinking water of the United States.
“Highly susceptible populations are impacted, including over 2 million pregnant women and babies,” Chen said. He said the evidence also showed that young boys whose mothers had consumed fluoridated water were particularly at risk.
The judge cautioned that he does not “conclude with certainty that fluoridated water is injurious to public health.” But he said the evidence shows “an unreasonable risk of such injury,” the standard the federal law established to require stronger government action.
The law leaves the next decision up to the EPA, Chen said, but “one thing the EPA cannot do… is to ignore that risk.”
Original article online at: https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/flouride-lawsuit-19795749.php