In a landmark decision late Tuesday, a federal court in California ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take action over potential health risks from current fluoride levels in America’s drinking water supply. This ruling deals a significant blow to the agency amid growing concerns that the benefits of adding fluoride to water may no longer outweigh the risks.
District Court Judge Edward Chen, appointed by former President Barack Obama, emphasized that while his ruling “does not conclude with certainty that fluoridated water is injurious to public health,” the evidence of potential risk is substantial enough to compel the EPA to act. He stated in his ruling, “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.”
Mounting Evidence Challenges Fluoride Safety
The judge cited a recent review by the National Institutes of Health’s toxicology program, finalized last month, which concluded that “higher levels” of fluoride are now linked to lowered IQ in children. Although the American Academy of Pediatrics has questioned the validity of this report—pointing out that other reviews have reached different conclusions—the debate continues to intensify. While the report said more research is needed into the lower levels of fluoride exposure typically found in U.S. drinking water, Judge Chen pointed out that “there is not enough of a margin” of safety at those levels.
He further explained, “Not only is there an insufficient margin between the hazard level and these exposure levels, for many, the exposure levels exceed the hazard level.” This suggests that the cumulative exposure from drinking water, food, toothpaste, and other dental products could be pushing fluoride intake beyond safe limits.
Debate Intensifies Over Fluoridation Benefits
Critics argue that the widespread use of fluoride toothpaste and dental products reduces the need to add fluoride to drinking water. They also highlight that other countries have successfully reduced cavity rates without water fluoridation. However, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has long hailed the addition of fluoride to drinking water as one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century. The agency maintains that continued water fluoridation is still the “most cost-effective method of delivering fluoride to all members of the community regardless of age, educational attainment, or income level.”
EPA Faces Pressure to Act
Judge Chen left it to the EPA to decide among several options in response to his ruling, ranging from issuing warning labels to tightening restrictions on fluoride addition.
“One thing the EPA cannot do, however, in the face of this Court’s finding, is to ignore that risk,” Chen wrote.
Michael Connett, a partner at the law firm Siri & Glimstad and the lead attorney for the groups who brought the lawsuit, emphasized that the law now requires the EPA to eliminate the risk of fluoride. “From our vantage point, the obvious way of eliminating the risk from adding fluoride chemicals to drinking water is to stop adding them,” he told CBS News.
He added, “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.”
Historic Use of Chemical Safety Law
The ruling stems from a lawsuit brought under a chemical safety law passed by Congress in 2016, which empowered citizens to challenge the EPA in court after the agency denied their petition. This marks the first time a group has successfully used the law to bring a citizen petition to trial.
As the EPA contemplates its next move, the debate over fluoride’s place in America’s water supply is more heated than ever. With the court emphasizing the potential health risks, communities nationwide are awaiting the agency’s response to this critical public health issue.
