courts declare that the use of fluoridation chemicals poses a significant health risk that is considered unreasonable
The United States District Court of the Northern District of California has made a historic decision in favor of the Fluoride Action Network and the plaintiffs, challenging the practice of water fluoridation. This ruling, presided by Judge Edward Chen, finds that community water fluoridation at the typical U.S. level of 0.7 mg/L presents health risks, particularly neurocognitive harm [1][4].
The court ruling centers on claims that fluoride, at levels commonly added to public drinking water, diminishes neurocognitive health, including reductions in IQ or other cognitive impairments [1][4]. This decision mandates the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to re-evaluate and regulate fluoridation, as it found the current levels to present an “unreasonable risk” of injury to health, as required under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) [1].
The EPA initially denied a petition seeking to stop community water fluoridation, which led to the lawsuit. However, the court's decision rejects the EPA's argument that dental benefits and oral disease risk reduction from fluoridation should factor into the risk assessment, deeming it a “nonrisk factor” irrelevant to determining whether an unreasonable risk exists [1].
The American Dental Association (ADA) contested the ruling, but the court's decision stands firm. The primary health risk identified by the court at U.S.-typical fluoridation levels is neurocognitive harm, with the government required to reconsider the regulatory framework to address this risk [1][4].
This momentous occasion, after 7 years of legal action, is a significant victory for all parties involved. Attorney Michael Connett, recognized for his leadership in pursuing this case, and many other team members, including co-plaintiffs and donors, played crucial roles in making this ruling a reality [2].
For more details on the court's ruling, you can access the document at this link: https://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Court-Ruling.pdf
[1] Fluoride Action Network. (2024). Court Ruling on Fluoride Case. Retrieved from https://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Court-Ruling.pdf [2] Fluoride Action Network. (n.d.). Michael Connett. Retrieved from https://fluoridealert.org/issues/people/connett-michael/ [3] Fluoride Action Network. (n.d.). Fluoride Case. Retrieved from https://fluoridealert.org/issues/legal/case/ [4] Fluoride Action Network. (n.d.). Neurotoxicity of Fluoride. Retrieved from https://fluoridealert.org/issues/health/effects/neurotoxicity/
- The court's ruling in the Fluoride Action Network case against water fluoridation has highlighted concerns over its impact on mental health, particularly neurocognitive harm.
- The United States court decision, presided by Judge Edward Chen, has mandated the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reassess and regulate fluoridation due to the identified health risks, especially when fluoride levels are typically added to public drinking water.
- The court's verdict dismissed the EPA's argument that dental benefits should be considered in the risk assessment, instead deeming them a "nonrisk factor" irrelevant to determining if an unreasonable risk exists.
- This historic court ruling, challenging the practice of water fluoridation, will have far-reaching implications for policy-and-legislation and general-news related to environmental-science and health-and-wellness.
- Lawsuits such as this one, supported by various parties including co-plaintiffs and donors, have the potential to lead to significant changes in science-based policy, given the evidence of neurocognitive harm associated with fluoride at traditional levels of public water fluoridation.
