The statement
“[T]he Court finds that fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligrams per liter (“mg/L”) – the level presently considered “optimal” in the United States – poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children…. [A] risk sufficient to require the EPA to engage with a regulatory response….”
“There is little dispute in this suit as to whether fluoride poses a hazard to human health. Indeed, EPA’s own expert agrees that fluoride is hazardous at some level of exposure. And ample evidence establishes that a mother’s exposure to fluoride during pregnancy is associated with IQ decrements in her offspring. The United States National Toxicology Program (“NTP”) – the federal agency regarded as experts in toxicity…. concluded that fluoride is indeed associated with reduced IQ in children, at least at exposure levels at or above 1.5 mg/L (i.e., “higher” exposure levels)….”
“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. And this risk is unreasonable under Amended TSCA. Reduced IQ poses serious harm. Studies have linked IQ decrements of even one or two points to e.g., reduced educational attainment, employment status, productivity, and earned wages.”
The source
Federal Court Judge Edward Chen of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California, as reported on Dr Geoff Pain’s substack (https://geoffpain.substack.com/p/fluoride-lawsuit-closing-arguments) , and by Children’s Health Defense, 25 September 2024 (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/fluoridation-risk-kids-landmark-decision/)
My take on it
Overdue.
This appropriate outcome is a direct consequence of a 2016 amendment to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) by Congress. The TSCA allows U.S. citizens to petition the EPA to evaluate whether a chemical presents an unreasonable risk to public health and should be regulated. If the EPA denies a TSCA citizen petition — which the agency did when the plaintiffs asked it to reexamine water fluoridation in 2016 — the petitioners are entitled to a “de novo” judicial review of the science without the deference to the agency typically afforded it in legal cases:
“The judge did what EPA has long refused to do, and that is to apply the EPA standard risk assessment framework to fluoride,” said Michael Connett, attorney for the plaintiffs. Connett said that Congress created the citizen petition provision in TSCA as a counterweight to bureaucratic lethargy and as a check on the EPA. The statute, he said, is a powerful tool for overcoming politicized science.
Politicised science indeed.
Australia needs the same remedy, for the same reason. From its outset the covid scamdemic has been characterised by failure to apply standard risk assessment frameworks.
The arguments against fluoridation go beyond its effect on IQ. Long-term ingestion of excessive fluoride can affect skeletal integrity, a condition known as skeletal fluorosis.