Collaborative Groups File a Lawsuit to End Fluoride-Treated Tap Water

| January 2, 2018 | 0 Comments

EPA Being Challenged About the Health Effects of Fluoride

Fluoride Action Network (FAN), together with a coalition of environmental, medical and health groups, collectively known as the “petitioners,” served the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with a petition calling on the Agency to ban the addition of fluoridation chemicals to public water supplies due to the risks these chemicals pose to the brain. The Petition was submitted under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) because it authorizes the EPA to prohibit the “particular use” of a chemical that presents an unreasonable risk to the general public or susceptible subpopulations. TSCA also gives EPA the authority to prohibit drinking water additives.

The plaintiffs’ attorney, Michael Connett, JD, recently offered this statement, “Judge just handed down his ruling — he has denied EPA’s motion to dismiss!”

He added, “A federal judge has ruled in our favor, to allow our lawsuit against the EPA to continue to move forward.”

According to Marjorie Shapiro, board member of Moms Against Fluoridation, “This collaborative effort is a sign of a growing commitment of concerned citizens, medical professionals and scientists working together to really bring this important issue to court.”

She added, “This really is a landmark case because its purpose is to end an antiquated and harmful policy, and it also addresses how the Citizens Petition, which is part of the new (Congressionally approved) Toxic Substance Control Act, is to be interpreted by the EPA. This opinion from the Ninth Circuit Federal Court came out today and is a huge victory for all citizens because it means we can raise our voices about exposures to dangerous substances.”

The plantiffs allege that fluoridation chemicals (specifically, hydrofluorosilicic acid, sodium silicofluoride, and sodium fluoride) are added to public water supplies across the United States in an attempt to reduce tooth decay. The practice began in the 1940s “on the mistaken premise that fluoride’s primary benefit to teeth comes from ingestion.”

More recent research, they argue, demonstrates that fluoride’s “primary benefit comes from topical application” and therefore, ingestion is unnecessary to prevent tooth decay. Though water fluoridation has been “rejected or discontinued by the vast majority of European countries,” it continues in the United States.

The plaintiffs allege that the risks of fluoridation include a higher risk of deleterious effects on the brain, including cognitive impairments (lowered IQ) and neurotoxicity. This includes concern for fetal brain exposure from ingesting fluoride.

On November 22, 2016, the plaintiffs petitioned the EPA to issue a rule under Section 6(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”), 15 U.S.C. prohibiting the addition of “fluoridation chemicals” to drinking water supplies.

Some of the collaborative organizations that are plantiffs on this case include Fluoride Action Network, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, Food & Water Watch,
International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Moms Against Fluoridation and Organic Consumers Association.

To learn more about this national effort, visit www.momsagainstfluoridation.org.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Category: Education, Events, Featured Articles, Health & Fitness, Life Style, National News

avatar

About the Author ()

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *