Fluoride Lawsuit In opposition to EPA: Alleged Corruption, Gorgeous Beneath Oath Federal Statements

On this sequence, we uncover the contentious findings surrounding fluoridation of the U.S. public water present and reply the question of whether or not or not water fluoridation poses a hazard and what we should at all times do about it.

Beforehand: A confounding problem inside the fluoride debate is the arsenic that contaminates the financial sources of fluoride added to public water strategies.

A groundbreaking federal lawsuit might ban fluoride from ingesting water, overturning a decades-long program aimed towards stopping cavities that has been challenged by mounting proof of harm.

The Fluoride Movement Group (FAN) sued the Environmental Security Firm (EPA) under the Toxic Substances Administration Act in 2017, and it appears to be nearing its conclusion. Beneath the act, residents can downside the EPA in court docket docket when the corporate rejects a petition to ban or regulate a toxic substance. The FAN’s swimsuit is the first inside the 44-year historic previous of the act to really get to trial.

The lawsuit has included pointed testimony from major specialists on environmental toxins and admissions from every EPA and Amenities for Sickness Administration and Prevention (CDC) officers that fluoride is perhaps linked to specific harms. The lawsuit has moreover revealed authorities interference in important scientific findings.

In From the Fringes

The lawsuit has launched consideration to new evaluation that hyperlinks fluoride publicity to damaging neurodevelopment outcomes, issues which have typically been deemed conspiracy theories.

“Opposition to fluoridation is now on the very least 70 years earlier, nevertheless for a lot of of that time has been wrongly dismissed as a fringe and unscientific place,” FAN’s authorities director, Paul Connett, talked about in a press launch.

“The rapidly rising science on developmental neurotoxicity, significantly lack of IQ from early life publicity to fluoride, is a game-changer.”

Lots of an necessary science on fluoride has come by the use of evaluation funded with 1000’s and 1000’s of {{dollars}} by the Nationwide Institutes of Effectively being.

A couple of of that evaluation has concluded that “the prospect to children is just too good to ponder water fluoridation safe,” Connett talked about.

The Background

The lawsuit began after the EPA rejected a petition filed in November 2016 that referred to as on the corporate to “protect most of the people and inclined subpopulations from the neurotoxic risks of fluoride by banning the addition of fluoridation chemical compounds to water.”

The petition referenced better than 2,500 pages of scientific documentation detailing the risks of water fluoridation to human nicely being, along with better than 180 revealed analysis exhibiting fluoride is linked to lowered IQ and neurotoxic harm.

In its Feb. 27, 2017 response, the EPA rejected the petition, claiming it didn’t “set forth a scientifically defensible basis to conclude that any people have suffered neurotoxic harm on account of publicity to fluoride.”

In response to the denial, FAN and Meals & Water Watch filed the federal lawsuit in opposition to the EPA.

The Toxic Substances Administration Act is aimed at stopping harm from environmental chemical hazards sooner than they occur and supplies the EPA authority to regulate or ban the “express use” of chemical compounds that pose an “unreasonable hazard” to human nicely being, along with inclined subpopulations.

The EPA made a lot of makes an try and have the case dismissed, each of which was denied by the court docket docket. In spite of everything sides made its closing remarks inside the two-week trial in 2020, the court docket docket made a shock dedication to delay judgment.

A 2nd Half

Pretty than downside a judgment, in August 2020, the court docket docket paused all proceedings and instructed the plaintiffs to file a model new petition with the EPA along with the model new scientific analysis.

They did so in November 2020, nevertheless the EPA denied it, citing insufficient scientific proof, stating, “With out the final word [National Toxicology Program] monograph, reconsidering the petition denial presently wouldn’t be prudent use of EPA’s belongings.”

That monograph is the Nationwide Toxicology Program’s report on fluoride toxicity, a doc the federal authorities has been reluctant to launch.

The EPA’s rejection of the petition means a second a part of the trial will occur. In explaining his dedication to extend the trial, the determine well-known the issue of ongoing science on the topic.

“Lots has modified as a result of the petition was filed … two important sequence of analysis—respective cohort analysis—which all folks agrees is the right methodology. All folks agrees that these had been rigorous analysis and all folks agrees that these analysis will be part of the right on the market scientific proof,” talked about Resolve Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Courtroom docket for the Northern District of California.

Chen wants two paperwork inside the subsequent a part of trial.

  1. The systematic overview of fluoride’s neurotoxicity from the Nationwide Toxicology Program. This method’s report, which isn’t however finalized, has been a provide of controversy inside the ongoing lawsuit. The report draft was made public on March 15, 2022, as part of an settlement inside the lawsuit, nevertheless internal CDC emails obtained by the use of the Freedom of Information Act revealed authorities interference with its launch.
  2. A Benchmark Dose analysis of fluoride’s neurotoxicity. The analysis titled “A Benchmark Dose Analysis for Maternal Being pregnant Urine-Fluoride and IQ in Youngsters” by Dr. Philippe Grandjean et al. was revealed on June 8, 2021, inside the journal Risk Analysis.

The court docket docket moreover expressed a precedence that the EPA didn’t apply the best regular of causation under the requirements of the Toxic Substances Administration Act in its analysis of the nicely being hazards of fluoride.

In keeping with FAN, the court docket docket has put apart two weeks to hearken to testimony and cross-examination {of professional} witnesses primarily based totally on new revealed evaluation and proof that has come to light as a result of the ultimate trial dates in 2020.

Revelations at Trial

Throughout the preliminary trial, Grandjean, Dr. Howard Hu, and Dr. Bruce Lanphear had been amongst noteworthy skilled plaintiff witnesses.

Grandjean has revealed spherical 500 scientific papers, and his analysis on the neurodevelopmental outcomes of prenatal mercury publicity was utilized by the EPA to derive a reference dose for methylmercury.

Hu and Lanphear are acknowledged for his or her seminal evaluation on the affect and neurotoxicity of lead publicity, and every have labored with the EPA in skilled advisory roles. Lanphear’s earlier analysis had been utilized by the EPA to set the necessities on and legal guidelines of lead.

Every testified on the outcomes of their newest multiyear NIH-funded analysis on fluoride and neurodevelopment.

In his testimony, Hu talked about his findings had been comparable in magnitude to the affect of lead publicity, and in his closing assertion talked about, “It’s my opinion to an reasonably priced diploma of scientific certainty, that the outcomes of the issue analysis assist the conclusion that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxicant at ranges of internalized publicity seen in water fluoridated communities.”

Equally, Lanphear closed his testimony by stating, “The collective proof from potential cohort analysis helps the conclusion that fluoride publicity all through early thoughts enchancment diminishes the psychological abilities in youthful children, along with on the purportedly ‘optimum’ ranges of publicity for caries prevention.”

Grandjean, a physician, environmental epidemiologist, and adjunct professor on the Harvard T.H. Chan College of Public Effectively being, testified on a weight of proof analysis he did of all best-available evaluation on fluoride and neurotoxicity.

“With an reasonably priced diploma of scientific certainty, I attributable to this truth ponder the elevated ranges of fluoride publicity inside the U.S. inhabitants as a extreme public nicely being concern,” he talked about.

Science for Lease?

In keeping with court docket docket paperwork, as an alternative of the EPA calling of their very personal firm’s specialists on fluoride, they employed the pores and skin consultancy company Exponent, bringing of their employees, principal scientists Ellen Chang and Joyce Tsuji, as skilled witnesses.

Exponent says on its web page that one in every of many many areas it focuses on is toxic tort and supporting its consumers on regulatory frameworks such as a result of the Toxic Substances Administration Act. As well as they bear in mind they’ve testified in pretty just some state and federal courts.

Before now, Chang has produced systematic opinions for every Dow’s chemical Agent Orange, a herbicide utilized by the navy in the midst of the Vietnam Battle to kill enemy crops, and Monsanto’s pesticide glyphosate.

Every opinions concluded that there was no fixed or convincing proof of a “causal relationship” between publicity to the merchandise and nicely being risks, although not all scientists and analysis agree with these conclusions.

Chang was moreover a key skilled witness for 3M inside the 2017 lawsuit filed by the state of Minnesota in opposition to the company for dumping PFC-containing waste into the Minnesota environment.

In her skilled report, she argued that “no major nicely being or regulatory firm has concluded {{that a}} causal impression has been established between publicity to PFOA, PFOS, or totally different and any opposed human nicely being consequence.”

At current, the Worldwide Firm for Evaluation on Most cancers, which is part of the World Effectively being Group (WHO), classifies PFOA as “presumably carcinogenic to folks.”

Per trial paperwork, Chang criticized the usual of the peer-reviewed NIH-funded analysis linking fluoride to lowered IQ. She concluded that “the power of the seen associations doesn’t current persuasive proof.”

In keeping with court docket docket paperwork, Chang and Tsuji testified that they weren’t specialists on fluoride earlier to their retention for the lawsuit, and Chang had billed the EPA spherical $150,000 for her work.

In a September 2022 court docket docket doc, safety lawyer Brandon N. Adkins notified the court docket docket that on July 2022, Chang, the safety’s skilled epidemiologist, was no longer on the market as an skilled witness inside the case.

Federal Depositions

FAN supplied a lot of sworn statements from leaders contained in the CDC, the EPA, the FDA, and others from prior depositions.

The Epoch Events acquired video clips of a lot of depositions and the petitioners’ summary of the trial file, nevertheless hasn’t obtained the entire transcript of the trial.

Primarily based totally on these paperwork, Joyce Donahue, chief scientist on fluoride on the EPA’s Office of Water, admitted under oath that the most recent analysis on fluoride neurotoxicity, along with the NIH-funded analysis, are “successfully carried out” and warrant a reassessment of all current safety necessities on fluoride.

All through his testimony, Casey Hannon, director of the Oral Effectively being Division on the CDC, stated that the corporate, in reference to the intergovernmental work group, agreed with the Nationwide Evaluation Council (NRC) that it’s apparent that fluorides have the ability to intrude with the options of the thoughts and the physique by direct and indirect means.

When requested if the CDC accepts that fluoride is an endocrine disruptor, Hannon replied, “We accept the [2006] NRC report as a summary of the hazard, positive.”

Furthermore, when requested, Hannon talked about that the CDC considers the American Dental Affiliation an outside affiliate that the CDC companions with to promote group water fluoridation.

Alleged Fraud and Corruption

FAN has used the lawsuit to moreover draw consideration to what may be systemic factors contained in the EPA.

Courtroom docket paperwork included a Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey carried out by the U.S. Office of Personnel Administration.

Throughout the survey, 60.4 % of employees inside the EPA’s Office of Air air pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), liable for imposing the Toxic Substances Administration Act, gave a “adversarial” analysis in regards to the honesty and integrity of senior leaders.

The paperwork moreover well-known that 4 EPA scientists inside the Office of Chemical Safety and Air air pollution Prevention (which includes the OPPT) have filed complaints alleging “fraud and corruption” related to chemical hazard assessments carried out under the act, along with the eradicating of potential nicely being outcomes with out the information or consent of human nicely being assessors.

The survey and paperwork weren’t specific to the fluoride downside.

Subsequent: On the coronary coronary heart of the continued trial over water fluoridation is the NTP’s six-year systematic overview of fluoride’s neurotoxicity. CDC emails obtained by the use of the Freedom of Information Act reveal authorities efforts to stop the discharge of the overview.

Be taught Half 1 – The Renewed Scientific Opposition to Water Fluoridation

Be taught Half 2 – Uncovering the Variations: Why Pure Fluoride and Synthetic Fluoride Are Not Created Equal

Be taught Half 3 – Fluoride: A Miracle Remedy for Cavities, a Poison, or Every

Be taught Half 4 – Effectively being Outcomes of Fluoride: The Science

Be taught Half 5 – New Analysis Hyperlink Fluoride to Decreased IQ and ADHD in Youngsters

Be taught Half 6 – Hidden Fluoride in Our Meals, Medicine, and Ambiance

Be taught Half 7 – Arsenic: A Recognized Contaminant in Fluoride Added to the US Water Present