The Water Fluoridation Lawsuit Against the EPA
Food and Water Watch, Inc. et al vs. Environmental Protection Agency et al
Q. What was the lawsuit about?
A. A group of non-profit environmental and health organizations and
individuals petitioned the EPA in 2016 to end the addition of fluoridation
chemicals into drinking water based on the risk of neurotoxicity (brain
damage). The EPA rejected the petition. In response, the citizen groups sued
the EPA in 2017.
The case was held in federal court in the Northern District of California in San
Francisco. Judge Edward Chen heard the case and ruled in favor of the citizen
groups. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6201332/445/food-water-watch-
inc-v-environmental-protection-agency/
Q. What health risks were brought up?
A. The court’s 80-page decision evaluated and weighed the evidence from
dozens of studies on IQ loss, including studies that both sides agreed were
high-quality. The court described this research as “. . . a robust body of
evidence finding a statistically significant adverse association between fluoride
and IQ.” This evidence included several high-quality studies from North
America finding reduced IQ among children exposed to so-called “optimal”
amounts of fluoride in the womb and early infancy.
Q. Does the court’s decision apply to sources of fluoride other than
community water fluoridation, such as fluoridated toothpaste?
A. No, the decision applies only to community water fluoridation at the current
target concentration of 0.7 mg/L.
Q. Did the lawsuit address possible dental benefits of fluoridation?
A. No, only possible harm. However, a CDC representative acknowledged in a
sworn deposition that fluoridated water provides no cavity-preventive benefit
from prenatal or infant exposure before teeth have erupted. These are the life
stages when the risk of neurotoxicity is greatest.
Q. What was the court’s ruling?
A. On Sept. 24, 2024, the court ruled in favor of the citizen groups against the
EPA: “the Court finds that fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligrams per liter
(“mg/L”) – the level presently considered “optimal” in the United States –
poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children....”
The decision also ordered the EPA to establish rules that would eliminate this
risk.
Q. Did the court say there was absolute certainty that fluoridated water
reduces IQ?
A. Certainty of harm is not a requirement for the EPA to find an unreasonable
risk, and the court did not go so far as to say there is a certainty of IQ loss from
fluoridation. The court did conclude, however, that “There is significant
certainty (emphasis in original) . . . regarding the association between fluoride
and reduced IQ” and that “Plaintiffs have proven, by a preponderance of
evidence,” that water fluoridation . . . presents an “unreasonable risk” of this
hazard.”
Q. How many IQ point losses were identified by the scientific data in the
lawsuit?
A. For mothers drinking an average amount of water, the expected IQ loss for
their children is in the range of 1-3 IQ points. However, for mothers drinking
substantially more (about 5% of the population), the estimated loss is in the
range of 5-7 IQ points. Since there is a wide range of susceptibility between
individuals to any toxic chemical, some children will have less (or no) IQ loss
while others will have higher IQ loss than average.
The court noted that a loss of just 1 IQ point “has been shown to be associated
with reduced educational attainment, employment status, productivity, and
earned wages....”
Q. How did the judge make his decision?
A. His 80-page ruling was based solely on the science and the TSCA statute.
He considered testimony from scientists and government officials from both
sides, including experts in neurotoxicity, epidemiology, and risk assessment.
The judge also cited the systematic review produced by the National
Toxicology Program (NTP), regarded as the one of the world’s pre-eminent
authorities on the hazards of chemicals. Both sides agreed the NTP review was
thorough and high quality. Its evaluation underwent an unprecedented degree
of peer-review from independent panels of scientists.
Over seven years, NTP analyzed over 70 studies on fluoride and IQ loss. It
found that out of the 19 highest-quality studies, 18 linked higher fluoride with
lower IQs, several at levels in fluoridated water. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/sites/
default/files/2024-08/fluoride_final_508.pdf
Q. Didn’t NTP say that fluoride is consistently linked to IQ loss only at
water concentrations of 1.5 mg/L and above, with lower levels not as well
established? This is double the standard fluoridation level of 0.7 mg/L.
A. Yes, that’s accurate, although NTP cited several studies, all funded by the
National Institutes of Health, finding IQ loss at 0.7 mg/L.
Furthermore, water concentration is only part of the equation determining harm
from fluoride intake. The other is the dose – many people drink far more water
than average. They also ingest even more fluoride from food and drinks
processed with fluoridated water.
Also, the judge cited the EPA’s standard risk assessment protocol that requires
protecting those people with greater susceptibility. To do this, the EPA takes an
established level of harm and divides by at least 10 to set a level of safety for
everyone in a population. Thus, 1.5 mg/L ÷ 10 = 0.15 mg/L, substantially lower
than fluoridated water’s 0.7 mg/L.
Q. What did the judge require the EPA to do?
A. The judge said the EPA must take action, implementing rules to eliminate
this risk of IQ loss. He did not specify what those rules should be.
However, he did say “One thing the EPA cannot do . . . is to ignore that
risk.”
Q. What is the best way to eliminate the risk to our children and our
population?
A. Stop adding the toxin. Fluoridated communities, cities and towns should all
halt the buying and adding of the toxic fluoridation chemicals with taxpayer
dollars. This will better allow their drinking water to be as clean and free from
drugs and contaminants as possible, and this will save communities taxpayer
dollars. This action would eliminate the risk of harm and injury from
fluoridation chemicals.
Q. Does the ruling apply only to northern California?
A. No, it applies to the entire United States of America.
Q. Do communities have to wait for the EPA to take any action?
A. No. Communities, cities and towns and/or water authorities can take action
to stop fluoridation. Based on the court ruling, several communities have
already stopped fluoridation.
