Court Determines that Fluoridation Compounds Pose an Unjustified Threat to Health Safety
In a significant development, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has ruled that optimally fluoridated water poses an unreasonable risk to human health, particularly to children [3]. This decision could potentially challenge the current federal policy supporting community water fluoridation and lead to stricter regulation or discontinuation of the practice.
The court's ruling is a response to a case brought against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by the Fluoride Action Network and other plaintiffs, led by Attorney Michael Connett [1]. The court's characterization of fluoridated water as an "unreasonable risk" signals a shift towards precaution and mandated regulatory action by the EPA to address potential health harms.
The ruling is based on evidence linking fluoride exposure above twice the recommended levels to lower IQ in children, as highlighted in a 2024 National Toxicology Program report [2]. Although the evidence at typical fluoridation levels remains less definitive, the court has deemed water fluoridation at 0.7 milligrams per liter (mg/L) as posing an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children.
The implications of this ruling are far-reaching. It could lead to potential changes or bans on water fluoridation practices nationwide, pending EPA rulemaking and further judicial review. Advocacy groups supportive of fluoridation emphasize its public health benefits, while opponents cite this ruling as scientific validation to end water fluoridation [2][3][4].
This ruling marks a significant milestone after 7 years of legal action, challenging the long-standing view of water fluoridation as a safe public health measure. The court's finding requires the EPA to engage with a regulatory response to reassess and mitigate risks, particularly for children's neurodevelopmental health [3].
The court's ruling can be found at https://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Court-Ruling.pdf. The EPA is now required to respond to the court's finding regarding the risk of reduced IQ in children.
Many other team members, co-plaintiffs, and donors also played significant roles in this case, contributing to its successful outcome. This ruling underscores the importance of challenging established practices and seeking truth in the pursuit of public health and safety.
References: 1. Michael Connett's bio 2. National Toxicology Program report 3. Court ruling document 4. News coverage of the ruling
- This ruling, which centers around the safety of water fluoridation and its potential impact on health-and-wellness, especially children's mental-health, has been met with varied reactions from different stakeholders in the policy-and-legislation and politics sectors.
- The court's decision to categorize optimally fluoridated water as an unreasonable risk, based on science and evidence, challenges the general-news narrative that has long portrayed water fluoridation as a safe public health measure.
- The court's ruling, combined with evidence linking high fluoride exposure to reduced IQ levels in children, has raised questions about the current federal policies supporting community water fluoridation, potentially paving the way for stricter regulations or even discontinuation of the practice.
- This landmark decision in the articles of health and wellness marks a crucial moment, underscoring the significance of citizen-led advocacy efforts, such as those led by Attorney Michael Connett and the Fluoride Action Network, in challenging established practices and promoting truth and safety in health matters.
