fluoride 99

Federal Judge Denies EPA’s Bid to Toss Water Fluoridation Lawsuit

By On January 8, 2018

The issue of water fluoridation has been a contentious one in recent years, with proponents stating that the practice can help reduce tooth decay and opponents raising concerns about the potentially serious health risks of adding the chemical.

In April 2015 the opposing side, often derided in the mainstream as “conspiracy theorists,” received a bit of vindication as even the federal government admitted the U.S. population has been overdosed on fluoride for decades, cutting by almost half the amount added to drinking water supplies.

Now, the battle for safe drinking water has returned to the national stage, and a case that could lead to the outright banning of water fluoridation has been given the greenlight to proceed.

California Federal Judge Denies EPA’s Bid to Toss Fluoridation Lawsuit

According to this report from the website Water Online, citing a similar paywalled report from Law360, a federal judge from California has denied the U.S. EPA’s request to toss out a lawsuit from the Fluoride Action Network, Food & Water Watch and others seeking a ban on water fluoridation.

The lawsuit, originally filed in November 2016 by a coalition including the FAN, Food & Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Moms Against Fluoridation, and several individual mothers, seeks to ban the practice citing high neurological risks and a lack of justifiable benefits.

These fluoride opponents will now have their chance to argue their side of the story in federal court, in what could be a landmark case for public health (editor’s note: unfortunately as you may have guessed, the mainstream media is mostly ignoring this news).

The case is sure to be a contentious one, as the EPA refuses to back down on its assertion that the water fluoridation opponents “did not provide enough information to determine if the chemical poses an unreasonable risk,” Law360 reported.

Some critics of public fluoridation point out that the practice is akin to mass medicating a society, especially since everyone ingests or bathes in a different amount of water and the dosage cannot be controlled.

The lawsuit also alleges that the means of delivery via ingestion is of little benefit at best.

“We presented the Agency with a large body of human and animal evidence demonstrating that fluoride is a neurotoxin at levels now ingested by many U.S. children and vulnerable populations,” the FAN’s press release on the lawsuit reads (see it on their blog here).

“We also presented the Agency with evidence showing that fluoride has little benefit when swallowed, and, accordingly, any risks from exposing people to fluoride chemicals in water are unnecessary. We believe that an impartial judge reviewing this evidence will agree that fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk.”

In the EPA’s response, they state the following:

“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.”

But the organizations behind the lawsuit say that the EPA is quibbling with the methodology of the studies used to show the threat posed by fluoride (and ultimately ignoring them). They also say that the standards that must be met for the agency to take action are virtually impossible to meet, because of the influence the organization wields in deciding which studies to accept and/or deny.

Whether or not the courts see it the same way is yet to be determined, but one thing’s for sure: this case could have a dramatic effect on the health of millions.

For more information, check out the full WaterOnline.com article by clicking here.