USA: EPA's bid to toss fluoride ruling faces judges' skepticism

[pfpcnews]

EPA's bid to toss fluoride ruling faces judges' skepticism

Government attorneys didn't challenge the science behind the landmark decision but said the ruling erred by allowing new scientific studies be introduced.

E&E News - March 3, 2026

By Ellie Borst

E&E NEWS PM | Government lawyers attempted to sway a panel of perplexed circuit court judges to overrule a landmark lower court decision that said federally recommended fluoride levels in drinking water cause "unreasonable risk" to children's brain development.

During oral arguments before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Robert Stander, a Justice Department attorney appearing on behalf of EPA, didn't challenge the science behind the September 2024 ruling. Stander argued instead that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California judge, Edward Chen, erred by allowing new scientific studies be introduced at all.

The 2024 decision sent shockwaves as one of the rare instances of a judge ruling against agency science, and it just so happened to be brought under a yet-to-be tested provision under the Toxic Substances Control Act, which Congress overhauled in 2016. It also caught the attention of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who elevated fluoride as a key issue part of his agenda to "Make America Healthy Again."

"EPA was very much doing its job, it's just that the evidence didn't even exist at the time EPA denied the petition," Stander said. "This statute isn't designed for this circumstance."

EPA has since taken up a new review of fluoride, which is added to water to strengthen teeth and prevent cavities, under the federal drinking water law. The science on fluoridated drinking water has evolved in the past decade, specifically with regard to a 2024 National Toxicology Program report that linked lower IQ levels in kids to fluoride levels once considered safe.

Stander asked the judges to vacate the decision and have the district court decide on the case based on the evidence available in 2017, right after EPA rejected a citizen petition requesting the agency regulate fluoride under TSCA.

"Regardless of how the science was developed, why shouldn't it go to the EPA first to give them a chance to analyze it and make a decision on appropriate regulation?" said Brian Morris, the chief judge for the United States District Court for the District of Montana and an Obama appointee.

"I'm grasping for similar situations," said Judge Sidney R. Thomas, a Clinton appointee. "It's a little odd for us now to be applying facts on appeal."

Judge Ronald M. Gould, a Clinton appointee, also heard arguments.

Michael Connett, a partner at Siri & Glimstad who is representing the anti-fluoride groups, defended the lower court's decision, likening the government's arguments "to little more than sour grapes."

"The trial judge was careful in how he approached this novel litigation and took his job … very seriously," Connett said. "The court was faced with navigating some complex terrain … and the judge wanted to consider the new studies the parties had introduced during trial."

SOURCE:
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/arti ... m-00809947