In September, a historic court case was won in the Federal Court of California regarding water fluoridation in the United States. This landmark decision is likely to impact other countries that fluoridate their drinking water, such as New Zealand, where fluoride levels are relatively high. Local councils in New Zealand add between 0.7 ppm and 1.5 ppm (parts per million) of fluoride to the water supply.
This is highly concerning, as substantial scientific evidence indicates that ingesting fluoridated water at the currently prescribed levels poses health risks, particularly to the developing brains of infants but also to children with a reduction in IQ.
The pooled benchmark dose analysis concluded that a 1-point drop in IQ of a child is to be expected for each 0.28 mg/L of fluoride in a pregnant mother’s urine.
We do not know what the levels are here as no studies have been done that I am aware of – but in the USA the maternal urinary fluoride levels for pregnant mothers range from 0.8 mg/L at the median and 1.89 mg/L depending upon the degree of exposure. Not only is there an insufficient margin between the hazard level and these exposure levels, for many, the exposure levels exceed the hazard level of 0.28 mg/L.
This press release is from foodandwaterwatch.org
In a first-of-its-kind decision, a federal court in California ruled on the 24 September 2024 that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must strengthen regulation of fluoride in drinking water across the country. The court found that scientific evidence of fluoride’s health risks when ingested at levels currently prescribed for drinking water – especially to the developing brains of infants – requires stricter regulation of the chemical’s presence in drinking water under the Toxic Substances Control Act. The ruling could have a significant impact on the widespread, long-held practice of adding fluoride to drinking water in the United States. Currently more than 200 million Americans, or about 75 percent of the population, drink fluoridated water.
The case that was decided, Food & Water Watch Inc. v. EPA, came about after the EPA denied a 2016 petition calling for the agency to ban or limit the fluoridation of drinking water. Food & Water Watch and several co-petitioners subsequently sued the EPA to compel action based on the mounting scientific evidence of toxicity when fluoride is ingested.
In response, Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter issued the following statement:
“Today’s ruling represents an important acknowledgement of a large and growing body of science indicating serious human health risks associated with fluoridated drinking water. This court looked at the science and acted accordingly. Now the EPA must respond by implementing new regulations that adequately protect all Americans – especially our most vulnerable infants and children – from this known health threat.”
Sign the petition to stop fluoridation of our water in New Zealand here.
This extract is taken from Page 3 of 80 from the document lodged with the United States District Court Northern District of California
Case 3:17-cv-02162-EMC Document 445 Filed 09/24/24
The level at which the chemical presents a hazard is known as the “hazard level.” The level at which human populations are exposed to the chemical is known as the “exposure level.”
Reviewing 72 human epidemiological studies considering this question. The NTP 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). And notwithstanding inherent difficulties in observing effects at lower exposure levels, explained in further detail below, scientists have observed a statistically significant association between fluoride and adverse effects in children even at such “lower” exposure levels (less than 1.5 mg/L).
Notwithstanding recognition by EPA’s expert that fluoride is hazardous, the EPA points to technicalities at various steps of the risk evaluation to conclude that fluoride does not present an unreasonable risk. Primarily, the EPA argues the hazard level and the precise relationship between dosage and response at lower exposure levels are not entirely clear. These arguments are not persuasive.
Importantly, the chemical at issue need not be found hazardous at the exposure level to establish that a risk is present under Amended TSCA. Instead, the EPA requires a margin exist between the hazard level and exposure level to ensure safety; if there is an insufficient margin then the chemical poses a risk. The trial evidence in this case establishes that even if there is some uncertainty as to the precise level at which fluoride becomes hazardous (hazard level), under even the most conservative estimates of this level, there is not enough of a margin between the accepted hazard level and the actual human exposure levels to find that fluoride is safe. Simply put, the risk to health at exposure levels in United States drinking water is sufficiently high to trigger regulatory response by the EPA under Amended TSCA.
To this end, as mentioned previously, the NTP compiled and analyzed all relevant studies it could find and concluded that, at least at dosages of 1.5 mg/L or higher, fluoride is associated with reduced IQ in children. Subsequently, toxicology experts endeavored to put a finer point on the impact of fluoride on children’s IQ at “lower” exposure levels, i.e., those below 1.5 mg/L, and conducted a pooled benchmark dose analysis to define the precise hazard level of fluoride. For reasons described below, this pooled benchmark dose analysis benefited from increased statistical power relative to the NTP’s assessment due to its methodology (i.e., the benchmark dose analysis used individualized, continuous data, while the NTP assessment did not, due to quantity and variety of studies the NTP reviewed in that assessment).
Read the court document in full here
About The Author: Triona Backup
More posts by Triona Backup