In news that should surprise exactly no one, the Environmental Protection Agency has filed an appeal of the historic federal court ruling that ordered the agency to address the neurological risks posed by fluoride in drinking water. This comes almost a full year since US District Judge Edward Chen ruled that water fluoridation at current levels poses an “unreasonable risk” to children’s brains.
“In all,” wrote Judge Chen in his 2024 ruling,
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. Reduced IQ poses serious harm. Studies have linked IQ decrements of even one or two points to e.g., reduced educational attainment, employment status, productivity, and earned wages.
The ruling should have marked the start of meaningful regulatory action. Instead, the EPA chose to appeal – not on the merits of the case, though, interestingly enough.
The EPA is actually arguing that none of the plaintiffs had the right to even bring the case to court. That includes a pregnant woman from Kansas, Jessica. Their reasoning? Because her local water contained some naturally occurring fluoride (0.24 to 0.4 ppm), the EPA claims that additional fluoridation wouldn’t matter. It would have no real impact on her situation. Yet as the National Health Freedom Coalition (NHFC) noted in a recent statement on the appeal,
Yes, naturally occurring fluoride in Leawood’s water might have some undesirable impact, but water fluoridation, as is currently imposed on Leawood, approximately doubles the dose of fluoride, making its adverse impacts distinctly greater. So, an EPA rule, which might well do away with fluoridation, would have a helpful impact on the situation.
The EPA also argues that Judge Chen improperly allowed “too much” scientific evidence into the trial. That includes the National Toxicology Program report that confirmed fluoride’s neurotoxic effects.
Yet “both parties in the lawsuit claimed to want to include the NTP’s report,” reminds the NHFC, “in hopes that the new evidence would clinch its arguments over the science.”
In fact, attorneys for the defendant, EPA, always insisted that such further evidence would support its contention that the science was and is too unsettled for it to do a risk assessment and then adopt a rule. But the evidence did not pan out that way for them, so the judge decided against them, and now the EPA is left to argue that Judge Chen allowed way too much new evidence into the trial for consideration. Hence, it argues, the whole case should be dismissed.
Both the American Chemistry Council and the American Dental Association have both filed amicus briefs supporting the EPA’s appeal. Both organizations have consistently supported water fluoridation and oppose regulatory changes that would restrict it.
Meantime, every day that this appeal continues means continued exposure for those populations most vulnerable to fluoride’s neurotoxic effects – even as more evidence against fluoride continues to mount.
The EPA can delay, but they can’t change the science.
