Health concerns around fluoride in water merit EPA action, judge rules

The Environmental Protection Agency must address concerns about potential health risks posed by the recommended levels of fluoride in the country’s drinking water, a federal court in California has ruled.

While District Court Judge Edward Chen was careful to note his decision “does not conclude with certainty that fluoridated water is injurious to public health,” he added that evidence of its potential risk was now enough that the EPA has to do something.

“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,” Chen wrote in his ruling, which was issued Tuesday.

The decision fuels the growing debate about whether the benefits of adding fluoride to the water supply outweigh its potential harms.

For nearly a decade, anti-fluoride groups have been fighting in the courts over fluoridated drinking water. The nonprofit Food & Water Watch is the petitioner in the California case.

Chen’s ruling cited a recent review by the National Institutes of Health’s toxicology program that concluded “higher levels” of fluoride are linked to lowered IQ in children.

But last month, the American Academy of Pediatrics challenged the validity of the NIH review, saying other reports have come to different conclusions about fluoride’s risks and benefits.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention continues to endorse the addition of fluoride to drinking water as one of the greatest public health achievements in recent history.

While the NIH report did say that more research was needed to assess the potential dangers of the lower levels of fluoride typically found in U.S. drinking water, Chen ruled “there is not enough of a margin” of safety at those levels.

He pointed to studies of pregnant moms that found their fluoride exposure could be even higher. EPA experts had told the court those higher levels could be due to exposure to fluoride in food, toothpaste and other dental products.

“Not only is there an insufficient margin between the hazard level and these exposure levels, for many, the exposure levels exceed the hazard level,” Chen noted in his ruling.

Chen left it up to the EPA to decide exactly what action to take—that could be anything from warning labels about fluoride’s risks at current levels to tightening restrictions on its addition to drinking water.

“One thing the EPA cannot do, however, in the face of this Court’s finding, is to ignore that risk,” Chen wrote.

“From our vantage point, the obvious way of eliminating the risk from adding fluoride chemicals to drinking water is to stop adding them,” Michael Connett, the lead attorney for the groups who brought the lawsuit, told CBS News.

The judge’s ruling stems from a lawsuit first brought by the anti-fluoride groups under a 2016 chemical safety law that allowed them to challenge the EPA in court after the agency denied their petition.

“Clearly, the length of time the judge took to decide this case shows that the court did not rush to make this decision. It took its time, it allowed extensive testimony and evidence. So it was certainly not a rush job, just the opposite of it,” Connett said.

© 2024 HealthDay. All rights reserved.