USA: EPA Must Reduce Fluoride's IQ Risks to Children, Court Says

[pfpcnews]

EPA Must Reduce Fluoride's IQ Risks to Children, Court Says

Bloomberg Law - September 25, 2024

By Pat Rizzuto

• EPA to decide what action to take, but it can’t ignore risks

• Safe level nearly half amount health officials recommend

Adding fluoride to drinking water poses such a sufficient risk of lowering children’s IQ that the EPA must respond in some regulatory way, a federal court has ruled.

“The court finds there is an unreasonable risk of such injury, a risk sufficient to require the EPA to engage with a regulatory response,” ruled senior Judge Edward M. Chen with the US District Court for the Northern District of California on Tuesday.

Some kind of Environmental Protection Agency response is needed, because adding 0.7 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of fluoride to drinking water—the level presently recommended by US health agencies—is too risky, Chen said.

“It should be noted that this finding does not conclude with certainty that fluoridated water is injurious to public health,” Chen said. But, the EPA must examine the mineral’s harmful potential and decide how to respond.

“This order does not dictate precisely what that response must be,” Chen said. That remains the EPA’s decision under the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) amendments, he said. But, “one thing the EPA cannot do, however, in the face of this Court’s finding, is to ignore that risk.”

‘Vast’ Population Exposed

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, the federal government’s primary scientific advisory institute, recommended in 2006 that the EPA lower its enforceable maximum contaminant limit (MCL) of 4 mg/L of fluoride in drinking water to protect children. And the agency announced in 2011 that it would initiate a review of that limit. But, the MCL and non-enforceable public health goal, or maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) remain 4 mg/L.

Groups led by Food & Water Watch and the Fluoride Action Network had sued the EPA after the agency denied a petition to outlaw the 75-year-old practice of adding fluoride to drinking water to prevent cavities, arguing it is an unreasonable public health danger due to scientific studies that fluoride lowers babies’ IQs.

The size of the population exposed to fluoride in drinking water “is vast,” Chen said. “Approximately two million pregnant women, and over 300,000 exclusively formula-fed babies are exposed,” he said. That number far exceeds the population size the EPA has used as it determined whether regulatory action was warranted in other risk evaluations, he said. “EPA has found risks unreasonable where the population impacted was less than 500 people.”

Yet, Chen previously ruled TSCA doesn’t allow the benefits of a chemical to be considered as the EPA decides whether that chemical poses an unreasonable health risk. The agency considers a chemical’s benefits, the cost of regulation, and other information as it decides how to regulate the substance.

“There is little dispute that there is a statistically significant association between IQ decrements in children and fluoride concentration levels at 4 mg/L,” Chen said.

Even “the ‘optimal’ water fluoridation level in the United States of 0.7 mg/L is nearly double that safe level of 0.4 mg/L for pregnant women and their offspring,” he said, referring to the large amount of scientific data he reviewed and questioned attorneys about during the litigation that began in 2017.

Dentists, water utilities, and chemical policy attorneys are among the groups that have tracked this case, which was enabled by a provision of the TSCA amendments that gave courts the obligation to determine—without deference to the EPA—whether a chemical poses an unreasonable risk. That provision applies to situations where the EPA has denied a citizens’ petition to take action based on a chemical’s unreasonable risks.

“The Court has done what EPA has long refused to do: applied EPA’s risk assessment framework to fluoride,” said Michael Connett, a partner with Siri & Glimstad LLP, which together with Nidel and Nace PLLC and Waters Kraus & Paul LLP represent the lead plaintiff, Food & Water Watch. “It’s an historic decision. And, as we await EPA’s rulemaking proceeding, policymakers would be well advised to ask: should we really be adding a neurotoxicant to our drinking water?”

The case is Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. EPA, N.D. Cal., No. 17-cv-02162, 9/24/24.

SOURCE:
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environme ... court-says

[pfpcnews]

Federal Court Rules Against EPA in Lawsuit Over Fluoride in Water

By Alexander Tin

CBS News - September 25, 2024

A federal court in California ruled late Tuesday against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), ordering officials to take action regarding potential health risks associated with current levels of fluoride in the U.S. drinking water supply.

District Court Judge Edward Chen, appointed by former President Barack Obama, ruled that the EPA must respond to concerns about fluoride's risks. The ruling follows a nearly decade-long legal battle initiated by environmental nonprofit Food & Water Watch and anti-fluoride groups, such as the Fluoride Action Network, after the EPA denied their petition to stop local water utilities from adding fluoride.

While Judge Chen stopped short of concluding that fluoridated water definitively harms public health, he emphasized that the evidence of potential risks warrants action from the EPA. He stated, "In all, there is substantial and scientifically credible evidence establishing that fluoride poses a risk to human health; it is associated with a reduction in the IQ of children and is hazardous at dosages that are far too close to fluoride levels in the drinking water of the United States."

The judge's ruling references a recent review by the National Institutes of Health's toxicology program, which linked higher fluoride levels to lower IQ in children. However, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has questioned the validity of this report, citing differing conclusions from other reviews regarding fluoride's benefits and risks. The AAP, along with other expert groups, continues to recommend the use of fluoride in toothpaste and drinking water to prevent dental cavities.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has long praised the addition of fluoride to water as one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century. However, Judge Chen's ruling points to concerns that the margin of safety for fluoride exposure in drinking water may be insufficient, particularly for pregnant women, whose fluoride exposure might be higher due to other sources like food and dental products.

Critics of water fluoridation argue that the widespread use of fluoride toothpaste and other products renders the addition of fluoride to drinking water unnecessary. They also point to other countries that have successfully reduced cavity rates without fluoridation.

The CDC continues to support water fluoridation as the most cost-effective way to deliver fluoride to all community members, regardless of age or income level.

Judge Chen left it up to the EPA to decide how to address the court's findings, with options ranging from warning labels to tighter restrictions on fluoride in drinking water. "One thing the EPA cannot do, however, in the face of this Court's finding, is to ignore that risk," he wrote.

Michael Connett, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, stated that the most effective way to eliminate the risk would be to stop adding fluoride to the water supply. The case stems from a lawsuit brought under a 2016 chemical safety law that allows groups to challenge EPA decisions in court. This marks the first time a group has successfully used the law to take a citizen petition to trial.

"The length of time the judge took to decide this case shows that the court did not rush to make this decision. It took its time, allowed extensive testimony and evidence, and gave it careful consideration," Connett said.

SOURCE:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epa-fluori ... rt-ruling/