Court Upholds Health Risk Concerns Regarding Fluoridation Chemicals in Federal Ruling
In a landmark decision, the United States District Court of the Northern District of California has ruled in favour of the Fluoride Action Network and the plaintiffs in a court case against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding water fluoridation. This decision marks a significant moment in the long-standing legal action against the EPA on the issue of water fluoridation.
The court's ruling states that the fluoridation of drinking water at 0.7 milligrams per liter (mg/L) poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children. As a result, the EPA is now prohibited from ignoring this risk and is required to regulate fluoridation.
Attorney Michael Connett is recognised for pursuing and leading the case against the EPA regarding water fluoridation. Many other team members and co-plaintiffs contributed significantly to the success of the court case. The co-plaintiffs and donors who supported the case and spread the word about it also played a significant role.
It is important to note that at the optimal fluoride concentration of 0.7 ppm, public health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the EPA, have determined the level to be safe and effective to prevent tooth decay across the population. The maximum contaminant level set by the EPA to avoid adverse effects is 4.0 ppm, significantly higher than the optimal 0.7 ppm level.
Excessive fluoride exposure over a lifetime, at levels much above the optimal range, can contribute to bone pain, tenderness, and increased risk of bone fractures in adults, but these risks do not apply at the regulated fluoridation levels used in U.S. water systems. Acute fluoride poisoning from drinking water is extremely unlikely except in cases of accidental contamination with very high fluoride concentrations (above 4 ppm).
The recent court ruling has not identified new specific health risks at the 0.7 ppm optimal level but has reviewed scientific data mainly from studies with fluoride levels far exceeding U.S. recommendations and often with confounding factors. The consensus from credible sources is that optimal fluoridation has no credible evidence of harm beyond mild dental fluorosis and continues to provide significant dental health benefits.
In summary, the only notable risk at the optimal fluoridation level is very mild dental fluorosis in children, which is primarily cosmetic and transient. More severe health risks are associated with fluoride exposure well above the optimal level and are not relevant to fluoridation practices in the U.S. at current regulations.
This court ruling is a stepping stone towards potentially regulating or addressing the practice of water fluoridation in the United States. The court has deemed fluoridation an "unreasonable risk" to the health of children, and the EPA will be forced to respond accordingly.
You can find the full court ruling at this source: https://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Court-Ruling.pdf
[1] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2015). Regulation of Fluoride in Drinking Water. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/regulation-fluoride-drinking-water
[2] National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Retrieved from https://www.nap.edu/read/11571/chapter/1
[3] Grandjean, P., & Landrigan, P. J. (2014). Neurodevelopmental Toxicity of Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4067551/
[4] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020). Community Water Fluoridation: Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/oralhealth/fluoride/faqs.htm
[5] American Dental Association. (2020). Fluoride and Children's Oral Health. Retrieved from https://www.ada.org/en/public-programs/fluoride/fluoride-and-childrens-oral-health
- The court's ruling in the water fluoridation case against the EPA has emphasized that the current 0.7 mg/L fluoridation of drinking water poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children, requiring the EPA to regulate fluoridation going forward.
- The recent court decision on water fluoridation has highlighted the significance of mental health and overall health, as it deems the practice an "unreasonable risk" to the health of children, potentially leading to policy-and-legislation changes regarding health-and-wellness policies.
- While the consensus from credible sources suggests that optimal fluoridation provides significant dental health benefits with no credible evidence of harm beyond mild dental fluorosis, various influential sources like the Fluoride Action Network and Michael Connett have been challenging the EPA's stance on water fluoridation through policy-and-legislation and general-news platforms.
- The science community has been divided on the issue of water fluoridation’s effect on IQ. While some studies show an association between high levels of fluoride exposure and reduced IQ, others argue that more research is needed to draw definitive conclusions on this issue, highlighting the importance of evidence-based policy-and-legislation-making in health-and-wellness matters.
