A federal court in California ruled last Tuesday against the Environmental Protection Agency, ordering officials to act on concerns about potential health risks from America’s current recommended levels of fluoride. drinking water supply.
The ruling by District Court Judge Edward Chen, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, dealt a blow to public health groups in the growing debate over whether the benefits of continuing to add fluoride to water sources outweigh the risks.
Environmental nonprofit Food & Water Watch and several anti-fluoride groups, such as the Fluoride Action Network, have been in court for nearly a decade after the EPA denied a petition against local water utilities that added the mineral.
While Chen was careful to say that the decision “does not conclude with certainty that fluoridated water poses a risk to public health,” he said the current evidence of potential risks is enough to warrant forcing the EPA to act.
“In all, there is substantial and reliable scientific evidence that fluoride poses a risk to human health; it is associated with a decrease in children’s IQ and is dangerous in doses that are far from the fluoride levels in drinking water. United States,” wrote the judge in his decision.
The judge’s ruling cited a review of the National Institutes of Health’s toxicology program completed last month, which concluded that “higher levels” of fluoride today are linked to lower IQs in children.
The American Academy of Pediatrics has questioned the validity of the NIH report, saying other reviews have come to different conclusions about the risks and benefits of fluoride. The AAP is one group of experts that continues to recommend the use of fluoride toothpaste, in combination with fluoride water, to protect teeth from cavities.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has long hailed the addition of fluoride to drinking water as one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century, paving the way for the modern use of toothpaste and other dental products that also use fluoride to reduce these levels. of tooth cavity.
While the report said more research is needed on the lower levels of fluoride exposure typically found in U.S. drinking water, Chen ruled there is “not enough margin” of safety at those levels.
He pointed to a previously published study of pregnant mothers finding that exposure to fluoride could be higher. EPA experts have told the court that the higher levels may be due to other ways we are now exposed to chemicals in food and through toothpaste and other dental products.
“Not only is there an insufficient margin between this level of danger and the level of exposure, for many, the level of exposure exceeds the level of danger,” the judge wrote.
Critics cite the near-universal adoption of fluoride toothpaste and other dental products as evidence that the chemical should not be added to drinking water. Other countries abroad have reduced cavity rates without adding to the water supply, he said.
The CDC has argued that ongoing water fluoridation is still “the most effective way to deliver fluoride to all members of society regardless of age, educational attainment, or income level.”
Chen said he left it up to the EPA on several options the agency could take in response to the decision. These range from warning labels about the risks of fluoride at current levels to taking steps to tighten restrictions on additives to drinking water.
“One thing EPA can not do, however, in the face of this Court finding, is to ignore that risk,” he wrote.
Michael Connett, a partner at the law firm Siri & Glimstad and lead attorney for the group that brought the lawsuit, said the law now requires the EPA to take action to remove the risk of fluoride.
“From our point of view, the obvious way to eliminate the risk of adding fluoride chemicals to drinking water is to stop adding them,” he told CBS News.
The judge’s ruling stems from a lawsuit brought by the group under a chemical safety law passed by Congress in 2016, which gave it the power to challenge the EPA in court after the agency rejected the petition.
It’s different from what it’s called now “The Chevron Doctrine” that the Supreme Court overturned earlier this year, in 2016 the law said judges do not need to defer to the EPA’s expertise when petitioners challenge the agency’s ban.
However, the law leaves it up to Chen to decide whether the preponderance of evidence — if it’s more likely than not — shows that fluoride poses an “unreasonable risk.”
Connett said the ruling is the first time a group has been able to use the law to take citizen petitions to trial.
“Obviously, the length of time the judge took to decide this case shows that the court is not in a hurry to make this decision. It takes time, allowing extensive testimony and evidence. So it’s definitely not a quick project, just the opposite. of that,” he said.
