The TSCA Law Suit Timeline
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) authorizes EPA to prohibit the “particular use” of a chemical that presents an unreasonable risk to the general public or susceptible subpopulations. TSCA gives EPA the authority to prohibit drinking water additives.
On November 22, 2016, a Citizens Petition under Section 21 of TSCA was presented to the U.S. EPA requesting that they exercise its authority to prohibit the purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to U.S. water supplies. We made this request on the grounds that a large body of animal, cellular, and human research shows that fluoride is neurotoxic at doses within the range now seen in fluoridated communities.
The Petition was submitted by the Fluoride Action Network together with the Food & Water Watch, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Moms Against Fluoridation, Organic Consumers Association, and others (see * The Petitioners below).
• See also the news articles relating to law suit
November 22, 2016: On behalf of Fluoride Action Network (FAN), Food and Water Watch, MOMS Against Fluoridation, and several other groups and individuals, Paul Connett PhD and Bill Hirzy PhD served the EPA with a Petition calling on the Agency to ban the addition of fluoridation chemicals to public water supplies due to the risks these chemicals pose to the brain. The Petition was submitted under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) because it authorizes EPA to prohibit the “particular use” of a chemical that presents an unreasonable risk to the general public or susceptible subpopulations. TSCA also gives EPA the authority to prohibit drinking water additives. Below is the video of Connett & Hirzy bringing the Petition to EPA Headquarters in DC.
Above Video: The TSCA petition process begins
February 27, 2017: EPA denied the TSCA Section 21 Petition. Read their reasons here. In their decision the EPA claimed, “The petition has not set forth a scientifically defensible basis to conclude that any persons have suffered neurotoxic harm as a result of exposure to fluoride in the U.S. through the purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to drinking water or otherwise from fluoride exposure in the U.S.”
April 18, 2017: FAN et al.’s response to EPA’s rejection of Petition.
September 25, 2017: Motion to Dismiss FAN et al. Petition by the Department of Justice, on behalf of the EPA.
October 25, 2017: FAN et al. response to EPA’s rejection of Petition.
October 25, 2017: Amicus Curiae Brief of the Natural Resources Defense Council and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families in Support of Neither Party. Their brief against EPA’s basis to dismiss our section 21 Petition focused on EPA’s unacceptable demand: “must evaluate all of a chemical’s conditions of use”
November 30, 2017: Hearing with arguments from both parties. Michael Connett, JD, put forward the arguments of why EPA’s Motion to Dismiss should be denied.
December 21, 2017: Court rules in our favor and denies EPA’s Motion to Dismiss.
December 14, 2017: The EPA requests court for “a protective order limiting review to the administrative record and an order striking Plaintiffs’ Jury Demand.”
January 5, 2018: FAN et al. submitted a brief in opposition to EPA’s motion to the court for a sweeping order that would exempt this “civil action” from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) and deny Plaintiffs their right to discovery.
January 5, 2018: The National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) submitted an Amicus Curiae Brief in opposition to EPA’s motion to limit petitioner’s right to discovery. They state, “To the contrary, the language, structure, and history of section 21 all support the district court’s consideration of new evidence.” The NRDC involvement supports neither party on the merits of the case.
January 15, 2018: The U.S. EPA’s Reply “in Further Support of Motion to Limit Review to Administrative Record.”
January 18, 2018: The Defendant, EPA, “Answer” to FAN et al’s “Complaint of Fluoride’s harm submitted April 18, 2017. EPA’s response to each (107) paragraph in FAN et al’s “Complaint” of April 18, 2017, concluding: “Except as expressly admitted or otherwise stated herein, EPA denies each and every allegation in Plaintiff’s Complaint.”
February 7, 2018: The Court ruled in our favor: Order Denying Defendant’s (EPA) Motion to Limit Review to the Administrative Record
Above Video: Court rules TSCA fluoride case can move forward
October 24, 2018: The court orders more discovery in TSCA fluoride suit
September 19, 2019: The Defendants’ Motion to enlarge time for limited expert discovery
September 23, 2019: The Plaintiffs’ oppose the Defendants’ Motion to extend time for discovery
September 25, 2019: The Court denies Defendants’ motion for extension of time
Above Video: TSCA case moves forward with discovery
October 9, 2019: Defendants’ Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment
October 18, 2019: Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
October 24, 2019: Defendant’s Reply in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment
October 24, 2019: Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
December 19, 2019: Plaintiffs’ Proposed Findings of Fact
December 19, 2019: Defendant’s Joint Pretrial Conference Statement
December 20, 2019: Plaintiffs’ Trial Brief
December 30, 2019: The Court released its Order denying Plaintiffs’ and Defendant’s Motions for Summary Judgment. This means that our case will go forward. Trial is scheduled for two weeks beginning April 20, 2020 and will run for two weeks.
Above Video: Court rules TSCA fluoride case will go to trial
April 20, 2020: POSTPONED TSCA fluoride lawsuit trial dates, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco (postponed on 3/17/20 due to the coronavirus outbreak)
April 30, 2020: Pre-trial hearing date.
June 8, 2020: TSCA fluoride lawsuit trial start date. Due to the coronavirus, the trial will be conducted over video conference. An April 30th pre-trial hearing will provide more information on how to publicly access the video trial.