Two environmental groups that oppose the addition of fluoride to drinking water are waiting for a federal judge in California to decide if there’s a significant risk that fluoride has harmful effects on the brains of children.
Food and Water Watch, which has offices in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., and the New York-based Fluoride Action Network are plaintiffs in a case being litigated in the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs’ attorneys are urging Judge Edward Chen to conclude that fluoridation presents an excessive risk of impairing cognitive functions – in other words, an undue risk of neurotoxicity.
If Chen finds an excessive risk, the defendant, the federal Environmental Protection Agency, would have to come up with a plan to eliminate that risk, according to the Fluoride Action Network’s lead attorney, Michael Connett.
“Our position is and always has been that the way you eliminate the risk is you stop adding these chemicals to drinking water,” Connett told the Southern California Record. “It’s not that complicated."
He pointed to three significant scientific developments that generated heightened concerns about the impact of fluoride in drinking water in communities nationwide: In an examination of the scientific literature in 2006, the National Research Council found that animal studies affirm that fluoridation does affect the brain. And the National Institutes of Health (NIH) began funding human studies in 2012 that eventually found lower levels of fluoride in drinking water led to reduced IQ scores in children.
A third development is the National Toxicology Program (NTP) doing a significant review of neurotoxicity effects, according to Connett. Although the NTP has yet to release a final report about fluoride impacts, a draft report points to elevated concerns about neurotoxicity, he said.
“The public health community has been flippant and cavalier in dismissing a large body of evidence on fluoride and the brain,” Connett said.
He also questioned the reliance on studies beginning in the 1950s showing no harmful effects arise from fluoridation.
“Those studies were deeply flawed and basically created a flawed foundation upon which the fluoridation paradigm took root,” Connett said.
Supporters of adding fluoride to drinking water generally point to studies showing that oral health problems and dental costs decline significantly in communities with fluoridated drinking water. The EPA’s response to the plaintiffs’ closing brief in the litigation argues that the scientific evidence should prevent the court from finding what’s called “a point of departure” (POD) for neurotoxicity.
“Even the National Research Council 2006 review that plaintiffs highlight in the first paragraph of their closing brief concluded that the available data were inadequate to demonstrate a risk for neurotoxicity at 4.0 mg/L,” the brief states.
Community water fluoridation levels are typically 0.7 milligrams per liter, according to the EPA attorneys. And plaintiffs failed to prove that such a concentration presents an unreasonable risk, the brief says, adding that some scientific studies focused on relatively high doses of fluoride.
In a statement provided to the Record, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) said 10 consecutive NIH-funded studies have shown that fluoride affects brain development.
“FAN attorneys put their best foot forward in the TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act ) fluoride lawsuit, showing that water fluoridation presents an unreasonable risk to the developing brain,” the statement says. “We are hopeful that the forthcoming judgment from the court will be in our favor.”