Last week’s column focused on the benefits of fluoridation in our public water supply, citing decades of studies confirming that doing so significantly reduces tooth decay.
So, what’s the problem with fluoridating our public water supply?
This issue came to a head as a result of the Sept. 24, 2024, rulingof federal District Court Judge Edward Chen in an action Food & Water Watch Inc. and other environmental groups brought against the Environmental Protection Agency.
After a trial, Judge Chen held: “In all, there is substantial and scientifically credible evidence establishing that fluoride poses a risk to human health; 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. And this risk is unreasonable under Amended TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act).”
As a result of that finding, Judge Chen ordered that the EPA “is thus obligated to take regulatory action in response. The Court does not in this order prescribe what that response should be.”
Judge Chen based his decision largely on a report of the National Toxicology Program of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services titled “Fluoride Exposure: Neurodevelopment and Cognition.” Let’s take a close look at that report.
It is based on studies in non-U.S. countries — Canada, China, India, Iran, Pakistan and Mexico — where some women and children received total fluoride exposure amounts higher than 1.5 milligrams of fluoride per liter of drinking water. That report acknowledges that “the U.S. Public Health Service currently recommends 0.7 mg/L, and the World Health Organization has set a safe limit for fluoride in drinking water of 1.5 mg/L.”
The conclusion of this report (boldface emphasis from the original): “More research is needed to better understand if there are health risks associated with low fluoride exposures. … The NTP monograph (the basis for this report) concluded, with moderate confidence, that higher levels of fluoride exposure, such as drinking water containing more than 1.5 milligrams of fluoride per liter, are associated with lower IQ in children. It is important to note that there were insufficient data to determine if the low fluoride level of 0.7 mg/L currently recommended for U.S. community water supplies has a negative effect on children’s IQ.”
This report examines associations, not causation; does not apply U.S. fluoride levels; does not analyze confounding factors affecting IQ; and does not cite any of the recent studies contradicting NTP’s conclusions. As the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine cautioned, this “monograph cannot be used to draw any conclusions regarding low fluoride exposure concentrations, including those typically associated with drinking-water fluoridation.”
As a result of this ruling, the EPA is preforming a risk assessment — the first step in determining whether a new fluoridation limit should be imposed under the Toxic Substances Control Act, by which it is reviewing new scientific studies on the potential health risks of fluoride in drinking water.
To read the monograph, go to doi.org/10.22427/NTP-MGRAPH-8. For a recent op-ed in The Eagle about fluoridation, read “A dentist’s perspective on fluoride and tooth decay risks” (Feb. 11) by Rachaele Morin.
Original article online at: https://www.berkshireeagle.com/opinion/columnists/stewart-edelstein-word-of-the-week-fluoridation-continued-why-a-judge-ordered-the-epa-to-review-the-fluoride-standard/article_84b553f6-bca0-4994-9ff2-18d81fad1541.html