For decades, municipal water sources have been “medicated” with fluoride (and arsenic) byproducts. This decades-long medical experiment is intended to prevent tooth decay in the general population, but this mass experiment comes with its own set of health risks and completely bypasses the informed consent principle.
EPA ignores fluoride petition, paving way for historic lawsuit that could ban water fluoridation
The 2016 petition against fluoride was ignored by the EPA. This prompted the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and the Food & Water Watch to sue the EPA. Under the Toxic Substances Control Act, any citizen can sue the EPA if the agency rejects a petition to ban or regulate a toxic substance. There is more than enough evidence included with the petition to prove that mass water fluoridation causes harmful neurotoxic effects in the population. The petition included 180 published studies and approximately 2,500 pages of reference material showing that fluoride causes neurotoxicity and reduces IQ.
This is the first time in 44 years that citizens have brought a suit to the EPA using the Toxic Substances Control Act. This lawsuit includes expert testimony from within the CDC and EPA. These testimonies concur that fluoride is an environmental and human health toxin that is linked to specific harms in the human brain. The lawsuit has even revealed government interference that sought to hide important scientific findings on the toxicity of fluoride.
The next phase of the trial will include a systematic review of fluoride’s neurotoxicity, taken directly from the National Toxicology Program. The report draft was publicized on March 15, 2022. According to a Freedom of Information Act request, there was significant government interference, preventing the release of the data. The trial will also publicize an analysis titled, “A Benchmark Dose Analysis for Maternal Pregnancy Urine-Fluoride and IQ in Children” by Dr. Philippe Grandjean et al., published June 8, 2021 in the journal Risk Analysis.
Expert witnesses and scientists present compelling case to ban fluoridation of municipal water supplies
The EPA has made repeated efforts to have the case dismissed, but these new studies have prompted the judge to prolong the case. “So much has changed since the petition was filed … two significant series of studies—respective cohort studies—which everybody agrees is the best methodology,” said Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. “Everybody agrees that these were rigorous studies and everybody agrees that these studies would be part of the best available scientific evidence.”
The experts in this case include Dr. Grandjean, who has published 500 scientific papers. His work exposed the neurodevelopmental effects of prenatal mercury and was eventually used by the EPA to establish a reference dose for methyl-mercury. Grandjean concluded for the trial: “With a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, I therefore consider the elevated levels of fluoride exposure in the U.S. population as a serious public health concern.”
Other leading experts include Dr. Howard Hu and Dr. Bruce Lanphear. They are known for their research on lead, which ultimately set EPA standards and regulations for lead exposure. In their latest work on fluoride and neurodevelopment, Hu maintains that the amount of fluoride used in the water poses a threat to neurodevelopment, similar to lead exposure. “It is my opinion to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, that the results of the element studies support the conclusion that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxicant at levels of internalized exposure seen in water fluoridated communities,” Hu concluded.
This historic case could force the EPA to establish a new reference level for fluoride, making it illegal to add the toxin to municipal water supplies.