Attorneys for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said Friday that the agency would appeal the September federal court ruling requiring it to regulate fluoride in water.
The agency’s notice, filed Friday with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco, came just days ahead of today’s deadline for appeal.
It also came days before the Trump administration, which has signaled it may take action to end water fluoridation, took office.
U.S. District Judge Edward Chen ruled last year that water fluoridation at current levels in the U.S. poses an “unreasonable risk” of reducing IQ in children.
The EPA can no longer ignore that risk, and must take regulatory action, Chen said in the long-awaited landmark decision.
Michael Connett, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, wrote on X that the EPA’s decision last week has no binding effect on the Trump administration, which “can undo the decision on day one, or anytime thereafter.”
He said the Trump administration should welcome the court’s decision which “provides the new administration a clear legal pathway to ban fluoridation, which would bring the US in line with the vast majority of Europe.”
Chen’s verdict delivered a major blow to the EPA, public health agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and professional lobbying groups like the American Dental Association (ADA), which have staked their reputations on the claim that water fluoridation is one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century and an unqualified public good.
However, scientific understanding of fluoride evolved over the years to reveal fluoride’s toxic effects — including on children’s cognitive development — that were unknown or ignored when public health agencies began recommending communities add it to their water supplies nearly 70 years ago.
The ADA and other professional organizations that continue to defend their stance on fluoride have called for an appeal, while public health agencies have remained silent on the issue, or quietly backpedaled on it.
Commenting on the EPA’s planned appeal, Rick North, board member of Fluoride Action Network (FAN), one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the EPA, told The Defender, “This is just the latest in the series of attempts by the EPA to delay implementing rules that would protect the public.”
North said:
“Throughout the seven-year lawsuit, the EPA attempted every legal maneuver it could muster to prolong the proceedings. As even Judge Chen stated when rejecting one of the EPA’s requests for postponement, ‘justice delayed is justice denied.’”
In addition to the EPA’s motions seeking to delay the proceedings, documents obtained via Freedom of Information Act requests during the trial revealed attempts by lobbyists and officials within public health agencies to delay, weaken and suppress the research regarding fluoride’s harmful effects on children’s neurodevelopment.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said on social media that Trump would push to end water fluoridation on his first day in office.
Kennedy’s comments triggered a wave of articles in the mainstream press defending the practice. However, some commenters conceded that conventional wisdom on fluoride needs to be revisited.
The EPA sets regulations for legally allowable exposure levels. However, the CDC, housed under the HHS, makes recommendations about water fluoridation levels.
In a statement, FAN said, “To protect future generations of Americans, the incoming administration can and should independently review the research on fluoridation and give incoming regulators who aren’t captured by special interests the opportunity to reconsider this decision.”
Since the trial, the HHS published a monograph concluding that higher levels of fluoride exposure in drinking water are consistently linked to lower IQ in children, and a study published in JAMA Network Open in May found that children born to women exposed during pregnancy to fluoridated drinking water in Los Angeles were more likely to have neurobehavioral problems.
This article was funded by critical thinkers like you.
The Defender is 100% reader-supported. No corporate sponsors. No paywalls. Our writers and editors rely on you to fund stories like this that mainstream media won’t write.
A meta-analysis published in JAMA Pediatrics also found that the more fluoride pregnant women and young children are exposed to, the greater the decrease in a child’s IQ.
Less than two weeks after Chen’s September 2024 ruling, Cochrane published an updated review concluding that adding fluoride to drinking water provides minimal, if any, dental benefits, especially compared with 50 years ago.
The EPA declined to comment on the appeal and referred The Defender to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).
Attorneys from the DOJ, which represents the EPA, did not provide details about the basis for the appeal. A DOJ spokesperson declined The Defender’s request for comment.
Related articles in The Defender:
- Breaking: Fluoride in Water Poses ‘Unreasonable Risk’ to Children, Federal Judge Rules
- Lobbyists for Pediatricians and Dentists Dig in on Water Fluoridation
- U.S. Surgeon General Quietly Backpedaled on Water Fluoridation 5 Years Ago, Emails Reveal
- Plaintiffs Ask Judge to Take Swift Action as Landmark Fluoride Trial Wraps Up
