A federal judge has ruled that the level of fluoride added to municipal drinking water systems deemed “optimal” by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) poses “an unreasonable risk” of lowering children’s IQ.
“It should be noted that this finding does not conclude with certainty that fluoridated water is injurious to public health,” Chen said. “Rather, as required by the Amended TSCA, the Court finds there is an unreasonable risk of such injury, a risk sufficient to require the EPA to engage with a regulatory response.
“This order does not dictate precisely what that response must be. Amended TSCA leaves that decision in the first instance to the EPA. One thing the EPA cannot do, however, in the face of this Court’s finding, is to ignore that risk.”
The plaintiffs—an advocacy organization called Food and Water Watch—petitioned the EPA to investigate lowered IQs in children allegedly caused by fluoride, but their petition was denied.
The act entitles citizens to a judicial review of the EPA’s denial “without deference” of its decision.
“If the Court finds anew that the chemical at issue presents an unreasonable risk, it then orders the EPA to engage in rulemaking regarding the chemical,” the judge said. “The EPA is afforded in the first instance the authority to respond; regulatory actions can range from requiring a mere warning label to banning the chemical.”
According to the ruling, the EPA considers as safe a fluoride level of 0.7 milligrams per liter.
A Scientific Challenge
Chen acknowledged water fluoridation’s controversial history.The EPA promoted water fluoridation in 1975 at 1.2 milligrams per liter for dental health.
“Between 1981 and 1984, fluoride’s association with adverse effects including osteosclerosis, enamel fluorosis, and psychological and behavioral problems was contested,” Chen said.
When it became evident that there were adverse events such as risks of bone fracture, enamel fluorosis, and skeletal fluorosis, the level was lowered in 2006 from its maximum level of 4 milligrams per liter. Currently, fluoride is added to municipal water at 0.7 milligrams per liter.
Despite a growing body of scientific evidence pointing to fluoride causing IQ reduction in children, the EPA denied the plaintiff’s petition for the EPA to “consider whether fluoride in drinking water presents an unreasonable risk of injury to human health,” Chen said.
The plaintiffs then filed suit in California’s Northern District Court arguing that the EPA was wrong in its decision.
Chen said there’s “little dispute” over whether fluoride is hazardous.
“Indeed, EPA’s own expert agrees that fluoride is hazardous at some level of exposure,” the judge said. “And ample evidence establishes that a mother’s exposure to fluoride during pregnancy is associated with IQ decrements in her offspring.”
In a review of 72 human epidemiological studies and available literature, the U.S. National Toxicology Program concluded that fluoride is connected to reduced IQ in children.
“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,” Chen said. “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.”
