Fluoride Action Network

The TSCA Fluoride Trial, 2016 – present

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976, a group of non-profits and individuals petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2016 to end the addition of fluoridation chemicals into drinking water due to fluoride's neurotoxicity. The EPA rejected the petition. In response, the groups sued the EPA in Federal Court in 2017. A 7-day trial was held in June 2020 and the Court has yet to make its ruling as of October 2022.

A Citizens’ Petition, under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances & Control Act (TSCA), was presented to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in November 2016. After EPA denied the petition, groups, including Food & Water Watch, Fluoride Action Network, Moms Against Fluoridation, and individuals, sued to force the EPA to eliminate the “unreasonable risk” of neurotoxicity that fluoridated water presents to the American public.
See also in drop-down menu:
Fact Sheet
Lawsuit Documents
The Timeline
Fluoride’s Neurotoxicity
June 17, 2020, Last day of the trial
Daily Comments on the Trial
Media Coverage


The Court scheduled the next Hearing with the TSCA lawyers on Tues June 14, 2022, at 2:30 p.m. Pacific time. Zoom details will be listed here when they become known.

Up to December 2021

The Judge has not issued its ruling. After the trial ended in June 2020, the judge held several trial hearings with the attorneys. He informed them that he wanted two documents before making a ruling. As of May 2022, we are waiting for one of these two documents:

1. The document the Court wanted was the systematic review of fluoride’s neurotoxicity from the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP). The NTP spent 4-5 years and at least a million dollars to produce two draft systematic reviews on fluoride’s neurotoxicity. Both draft reviews stated,

“NTP concludes that fluoride is presumed to be
a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard to humans.”

However, on February 9, 2021, seven months after the trial ended, the NTP wrote a private statement, not released to the press or to the public, that it would not complete its systematic review. Instead, NTP wrote that it would do a “state of the science” report on fluoride’s neurotoxicity. The public learned of NTP’s private statement after lawyers representing the U.S. EPA in the TSCA trial submitted it into the record on February 22, 2021. This submission led to a February 24, 2021, article in InsideEPA which noted that this document would not include conclusions, thus it will have no “teeth” compared to a systematic review. The judge is waiting for this document.

The National Toxicology Program is well aware that the Court is waiting for its document. The presumption is that powerful forces within the National Institutes of Health were behind the ending of the NTP’s systematic review and that they may be involved in the ‘state of the science’ report as well.

See media reports:

June 30, 2021, by Inside EPA, NTP Eyes Rolling Release Of Fluoride Findings Seen As Key To TSCA Suit

Feb 10, 2022, American Dental Association, ADA urges NTP to base upcoming fluoride report on scientific evidence

Feb 22, 2022, Press Release, Fluoride Action Network says that ADA letter to NTP is based upon propaganda not science

See also Cowed by dental interests? by the Fluoride Action Network, April 19, 2021. Read more on the NTP here.

2. The second document that the Court requested was a benchmark dose analysis of fluoride’s neurotoxicity. This became available on June 8, 2021, with the publication of Grandjean et al.’s analysis, A Benchmark Dose Analysis for Maternal Pregnancy Urine-Fluoride and IQ in Children.

In Plaintiffs Notice to the court:

“On June 8, 2021, the pooled BMD analysis of the ELEMENT and MIREC data was published in the journal Risk Analysis, which is the official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis. The results of the peer-reviewed, pooled analysis are consistent with, and confirm, Dr. Philippe Grandjean’s earlier benchmark dose analysis that was discussed at trial and “can be used to guide decisions on preventing excess fluoride exposure in pregnant women.”

According to the study, which was authored by ten internationally esteemed scientists, including Dr. Grandjean:”These findings provide additional evidence that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxicant (i.e., causing adverse effects on brain development in early life). Given the ubiquity of fluoride exposure, the population impact of adverse effects from fluoride may be even greater than for other toxic elements like lead, mercury, and arsenic.”

A timeline of the case can be found here.

August 2020: Video with Lead Atttorny and RFK Jr.

Attorney Michael Connett sat down with Robert F Kennedy, Jr. (Chairman, Children’s Health Defense) for a discussion on the ongoing TSCA fluoride lawsuit. Michael Connett is the lead attorney for plaintiffs in the trial. This video has been heavily censored off mainstream social media platforms. The video is online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E80yl_3fE-E

• October 13, 2020: An article on the trial: EPA hired consultants to counter staff experts on fluoride by Ariel Wittenberg, in E&E News

• May 2020: Declarations from our 4 witnesses

Philippe Grandjean, MD, PhD

Howard Hu, MD, MPH, ScD

Bruce Lanphear, MD, MPH

Kathleen Thiessen, PhD

See Newspaper articles on the court case

Videos on the TSCA Trial:

December 2020

December 2020

December 2020

December 2020

August 2020

August 2020

August 2020

August 2020

August 2020

back to top