CLEAN WATER SONOMA-MARIN: working for fluoride-free water, and practical, nontoxic solutions to children’s oral health challenges.
JUNE 2020: TSCA EPA FLUORIDATION TRIAL SCHEDULE & ZOOM ACCESS
A bench trial before Judge Edward M. Chen will be held in U.S. Federal Court in San Francisco, beginning on June 8, 2020 at 8:30 AM: 3:17-cv-02162-EMC – Food & Water Watch, Inc. et al v. Environmental Protection Agency et al
TRIAL DATES are set for June 8, 2020, June 9, 2020, June 10, 2020, June 12, 2020, June 15, 2020, June 16, 2020, June 17, 2020, and June 19, 2020. Trial days will last from 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. The Court may determine that certain full trial days may be necessary as the trial progresses. Thursdays are dark. There will be a total of up to eight trial days, including June 8; the length of trial is subject to further modification by the Court.
HOW TO WATCH THE TRIAL FROM HOME: Due to COVID-19, the entire trial will be streamed live on Zoom. This means you can watch or listen from any computer or mobile device with internet.
We recommend downloading Zoom for your device prior to Monday morning. You can do that by visiting the Zoom Download Center at zoom.us
If you cannot, or would prefer not to download Zoom, you can also listen to the trial using your phone as you would a typical conference call.
RECORDING OR REBROADCASTING COURT PROCEEDINGS IS PROHIBITED BY THE COURT.
Here is the direct Zoom link to watch the trial on Monday:
Meeting ID: 160 727 5798
If you choose not to use Zoom, here is the Northern California phone number for audio only: +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose). Find a phone number for another location: https://zoom.us/u/ac4JkPfcjo
See the Fluoride Action Network’s TSCA LAW SUIT TIMELINE
MAY 2020: UPDATE ON TSCA EPA FLUORIDATION TOXICITY TRIAL
Relying on the citizen petition provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), a lawsuit in federal court challenges the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) re. community water fluoridation, a practice first endorsed by the U.S. Public Health Service 70 years ago, and affecting 200 million Americans on public water systems today. Demonstrating neurotoxic risk is central to the plaintiffs’ case under TSCA.
Plaintiffs include the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), Moms Against Fluoridation, the consumer advocacy group Food and Water Watch, and several individuals representing themselves and/or their children.
On 5/8/2020 the court denied the most recent EPA request, this time to exclude the testimony of 3 international experts, clearing them to testify on the neurotoxic risks of community water fluoridation in a federal court trial in San Francisco beginning 6/8/2020. Those 3 experts on neurotoxicity are Dr. Philippe Grandjean of Harvard and the U. of Southern Denmark, Dr. Howard Hu of the U. of Washington, and Dr. Bruce Lanphear of Simon Fraser U. in British Columbia.
On the same date, in a separate ruling, the court restricted testimony to the toxic risks under TSCA. EPA’s defense cannot include the purported oral health benefits of fluoridation.
The hearing laid the final groundwork for a remote access trial beginning 6/8/2020, originally set to run for two weeks, now compressed to 12 hours for each side, the result of a backlog from the recent COVID-19-related closing of federal courts.
Information on public access to the trial is not yet available. Live-streaming is not planned, and the court’s decision on audio recording is pending. There will be a limited number of telephone access “listening stations” for members of the public, but the trial schedule has not been set, and listening access protocols have not been released. As information on schedule and public access becomes available, it will be posted here.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TSCA FLUORIDE CASE
In this excerpt, a Bloomberg analyst explained the importance of Judge Chen’s decision here, and the stakes for citizen groups going forward : “The case is being watched in part for what it could portend for future efforts to regulate chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act, said Erik C. Baptist, a partner with Wiley Rein LLP. If the case goes to trial and a court eventually concludes that adding fluoride to drinking water poses an unreasonable risk, the health advocates will say the EPA must prohibit that use of fluoride. If that scenario plays out, other groups may see filing a petition with EPA requesting a new rule as a quicker way to get a chemical regulated or banned than the risk evaluation and risk management process laid out in the statute, said Baptist, former deputy assistant administrator for law and policy in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.” – Bloomberg Environment. “Federal Judge Asked to Let Fluoride-in-Water Case Go to Trial (1) ” (11/15/2019)
You can help with this historic lawsuit by making a tax deductible donation to FAN now.
Video: Fluoride and IQ: The Five Hammer Blows of Science
Dr. Paul Connett, PhD, Executive Director of the Fluoride Action Network, delivers the five hammer blows of science that shatter the notion that fluoride is safe for children’s brains. The message: “You can repair a tooth but you can’t repair a brain.” This presentation was given to the Calgary City Council Hearing on Water Fluoridation on October 29, 2019. Running time 10:27 minutes.
“As of June 2018, a total of 60 studies have investigated the relationship between fluoride and human intelligence, and over 40 studies have investigated the relationship fluoride and learning/memory in animals. Of these investigations, 53 studies have found that elevated fluoride exposure is associated with reduced IQ in humans, while 45 animal studies have found that fluoride exposure impairs the learning and/or memory capacity of animals. The human studies, which are based on IQ examinations of over 15,000 children, provide compelling evidence that fluoride exposure during the early years of life can damage a child’s developing brain.“ – From Fluoride Action Network, Fluoride & IQ: The 53 Studies
The first U.S. Government-funded study investigating prenatal neurological damage from fluoride, Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6–12 Years of Age in Mexico (2017), finds that each 0.5 part per million (ppm) increase in a pregnant woman’s urine fluoride levels reduced her child’s IQ by 2.5 – 3 points.
The full peer-reviewed study, a 12 year analysis of data from 287 mother-child pairs, was published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives (9/19/2017) , and is available at the U. S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) website. READ THE STUDY.
The new study is unique in approach, size, and duration, but it joins over 50 other human-based studies that find evidence of fluoride-based cognitive damage affecting IQ.
MORE about quantifying Fluoride’s potential to reduce IQ in children in Dawna Gallagher’s article explaining the 2017 Prenatal Fluoride/IQ study by Bashash et al.
Watch Michael Connett’s 2015 presentation on Fluoride and IQ Studies:
Michael Connett on Fluoride & IQ Studies (running time 26:24 min)
May 2018: Clean Water Sonoma-Marin Charitable Trust joins Fluoride Action Network (FAN) in the Moms2B campaign. Moms 2B alerts pregnant women to the most recent scientific evidence that consuming fluoride, whether from fluoride supplements, or from fluoridated water, can harm the developing brains of their unborn children. Don’t risk your child’s future. Learn more here: http://fluoridealert.org/issues/moms2b/
UPDATES: FLUORIDATION IN SONOMA & MARIN COUNTIES, OUR STATE & NATION
THE SONOMA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS has “postponed indefinitely” any consideration of the Sonoma County Department of Health Services (DHS) proposal to fluoridate Sonoma County water through the Sonoma County Water Agency (originally an item on the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors agenda 5/19/2015, item removed before the meeting). As of the 2016 elections, a majority of Sonoma County Supervisors is on the record opposing fluoridated tap water for Sonoma County.
LOOKING AHEAD, Sonoma County residents should be reassured to know that future attempts to fluoridate water in Sonoma County will not be through the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) . Even if, some day, the issue returns to the Board of Supervisors, the unanimity requirement among signers to the Sonoma County Water Agency Restructured Agreement for Water Supply cannot be met as long as the City of Cotati, the City of Sonoma, and the Valley of the Moon Water District continue their formal rejection of fluoridation. MORE ABOUT SONOMA COUNTY AND SONOMA COUNTY WATER.
PETALUMA: CHILDREN’S ORAL SURGERY RATES PLUMMET AFTER FEWER THAN TEN YEARS OF UNIVERSAL DENTAL CARE: “Through a $5,000 grant from the Rohnert Park Foundation, the Rohnert Park Health Center (RPHC) will be able to expand their school-based dental program in the Cotati Rohnert Park Unified School District this year, ensuring that all children in the community receive proper dental screenings, check-ups, preventative education, and if needed, access to restorative and emergency treatment services… [The RPHC] school dental program was first started in Petaluma less than ten years ago when the health center realized that many of the children in the community were suffering from dental diseases that are almost completely preventable. When they initially started the program they were referring about 250 children per quarter to oral surgery. The children had so many cavities that it required general anesthesia to repair them. After a few years of providing preventative care and education in the schools, that number has dropped dramatically to about four children last year [about one child per quarter] that needed to be referred to oral surgery. RPHC now hopes to obtain the same results in Cotati and Rohnert Park…” Read RP Health Center ensures all children in school district receive dental care by Stephanie Derammelaere / The Community Voice (12/21/2018).
SANTA ROSA: The Sonoma County Department of Public Health has declared a renewed focus on fluoridating the City of Santa Rosa (announced at the second annual Sonoma County Dental Health Summit, 9/25/2016), although, so far, no traction has been gained.
THE CITY OF HEALDSBURG remains fluoridated. For information and updates, visit Safe Water Healdsburg online.
NORTH MARIN WATER DISTRICT (NMWD) remains unfluoridated due to the full committment of the NMWD Board of Directors, which is grateful for Clean Water Sonoma-Marin’s successful efforts to stop attempts to fluoridate through the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA). 80% of NMWD water, including water for the City of Novato, is provided by SCWA.
MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT (MMWD) remains fluoridated. Clean Water Sonoma-Marin is holding individual meetings with Marin Municipal Water District board members. The good news is that we are talking at last, not just limited to three minute comments at MMWD Board meetings.
Marin Municipal Water District’s Cataract Falls property, safe from glyphosate defoliation thanks to the MMWD Board’s use of the Precautionary Principle.
MARIN COUNTY HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
Because communication is essential, Clean Water Sonoma-Marin Charitable Trust members , including medical professionals, have been sharing fluoridation concerns with Grant Colfax, MD, Director of the Marin County Department of Health, and with Marin County Public Health Officer Matt Willis, MD, MPH.
In the fall of 2017, a cordial meeting was arranged by former North Marin Water District (NMWD) Board Member, and current Marin County Supervisor from Novato, Dennis Rodoni.
In January 2018, a second meeting was arranged by Supervisor Rodoni. Although Dr. Colfax was unable to attend, Dr. Willis met with Supervisor Rodoni, and other Marin County Clean Water advocates, Ginger Souders-Mason, Deborah Landowne, Steve Lamb, CWSM-CT Director Dawna Gallagher-Stroeh , thyroid specialist Dr. Richard Shames, MD, and Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) Board Member, attorney Larry Bragman, who explained the current suit in Federal Court against EPA on the issue of fluoride neurotoxicity. Brian Smith DDS, and Bill Osmunson DDS, MPH, participated in the meeting via letters to Dr. Colfax and Dr. Willis.
As with all Public Health professionals, Dr. Willis is tasked with implementing and supporting Public Health policies, including water fluoridation. However, Dr. Willis said, of all the concerns about water fluoridation presented at the meeting, the one that gives him pause is the issue raised in the letter from Dr. Osmunson, the possiblilty that, with increasing fluoride exposure from many sources, Marin County residents might be receiving too much fluoride.
THE HEALTH COUNCIL OF MARIN is looking into the new data on fluoride toxicity. We have been contacted, and are providing documents as requested. The Health Council operates under Marin County Health & Human Services (HHS), and is responsible for advising the Marin Board of Supervisors, and Marin HHS on health issues, and advocating “for the development and allocation of resources to assure quality and accessible health care, and to educate regarding issues affecting the health and well-being of the citizens of Marin County.” Source: https://www.marinhhs.org/boards/marin-health-council
CALIFORNIA & THE NATION
MEDICAID FUNDS FOR FLUORIDATION INFRASTRUCTURE
Jay Kumar, DDS, MPH, is California’s first Director of Dental Health, an office created in 2015, after years of lobbying by the California Dental Association (CDA). Before coming to California, Dr. Kumar was instrumental in setting up a pilot program, now in effect in New York State, in which millions of dollars in Medicaid funds now support water fluoridation. The program, which siphons off scarce funds from effective dental and other health care, is a first step in an ambitious plan to use Medicaid funds to pay for water fluoridation infrastructure, engineering, chemicals costs, and staff time, nationwide. Dr. Kumar is in discussion with public health officials and key legislators, about a similar program for California. For more information, and documentation, please contact us.
TO BENEFIT THE NATION
VIDEO: Zero Waste hero, and FAN co-founder Dr. Paul Connett and Dr. Bill Hirzy, retired Senior Scientist for Risk Assessment at US EPA (1981-2004), old comrades-in-arms, have just hand delivered The Petition to EPA Headquarters, along with many heavy boxes of scientific documentation. Now they sit in the sun, praise young attorney Michael Connett for his brilliant work and, figuratively, pass the torch.
November 23, 2016, the International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology (IAOMT), and Fluoride Action Network (FAN), in coalition with others, hand delivered a petition to US EPA, accompanied by over 2,500 pages of scientific documentation, to ban the use of fluoridation chemicals because of the neurotoxic risks of fluoride ingestion.
Historically, when a chemical has evidence of neurotoxicity, for example lead, EPA has banned its use. Since 2014, fluoride has been on EPA’s short list of chemicals, including arsenic and lead, with scientific evidence of developmental neurotoxic harm to humans. However, EPA rejected the petition (2/27/2017).
April 18, 2017, the petitioners responded by filing a complaint in US District Court in San Francisco, seeking a ban on water fluoridation, under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
November 30, 2017, EPA responded with a motion to dismiss “all claims in the present matter.” The EPA motion was denied by Judge Edward M. Chen (12/21/2017). In early 2018, Judge Chen rejected an EPA brief seeking to deny plaintiffs the right to submit any evidence, including new scientific studies, not submitted at the time of the original filing.
NOTE: “This case will present the first time a court will consider the neurotoxicity of fluoride and the question of whether fluoridation presents an unreasonable risk under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). And, in contrast to most other legal challenges of Agency actions, TSCA gives us the right to get the federal court to consider our evidence ‘de novo’—meaning federal courts are to conduct their own independent review of the evidence without deference to the EPA’s judgment.” – attorney Michael Connett (01/15/2018)
For brief background on the petition, a detailed timeline of the lawsuit, including links to all filings and rulings to date, and the names of plaintiffs, and their attorneys, please read: Lawsuit against US EPA Regarding Fluoride Neurotoxicity.
October 22, 2018 Inside EPA reports [excerpt]: Latest EPA Defeat, Judge Orders More Discovery In TSCA Fluoride Suit. A federal judge has ordered EPA to provide internal documents and allow plaintiffs to depose agency staff on the risks posed by fluoridation, mandates that highlight the effect of an earlier ruling allowing the plaintiffs to introduce new evidence in their landmark Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) suit rather than limiting it to the agency’s record. In an Oct. 4 order, Judge Edward Chen, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, ordered EPA to release internal documents regarding its scientists’ views of a study linking fluoridation to IQ decrements, as well as ordering EPA to allow plaintiffs to depose agency staff on whether its existing fluoride standards consider neurotoxicity risks.
…Chen writes that the plaintiffs’ requests “are relevant because whether the EPA considered the neurotoxic risk of fluoride in establishing its safety standards bears on how much weight the Court should give to any EPA argument that its safety standards can be used to show what a safe level of fluoride is.”
…”In my view, it’s quite significant going forward … [Chen] didn’t provide any qualifications. He allowed deposition and forced EPA to search for internal documents,” the plaintiffs’ attorney, Michael Connett with Waters Kraus & Paul’s Los Angeles office, tells Inside EPA. “Even though [the order] is not technically precedential, it’s nevertheless helpful guidance for future courts” because this case is the first of its kind.”
VIDEO: Dec 31, 2019: Michael Connett gives an update on the TSCA Fluoride Lawsuit (running time 3:33).
“We are leaving no stone unturned. The court will hear the best evidence that’s available on this issue,” says Michael Connett, the pro bono attorney for the case.
On December 31, 2019, Edward M. Chen, U.S. District Judge, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, dismissed an EPA motion for summary judgement (MSJ) in the fluoride TSCA lawsuit. This means that our case will go forward. The trial has been rescheduled to begin Monday April 20 and will run for two weeks.
This is the first time in its 43-year history that citizens have been able to successfully bring a suit to court under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) provisions. This is a huge moment for us, and for the environmental movement as a whole. Finally the EPA is going to be held accountable for its decades of neglect with respect to protecting citizens from the deliberate addition of a known toxic (neurotoxic) substance to the public drinking water. Finally, we get our day in court, with experts from both sides presenting under oath.
Background on the case at TSCA Fluoride Lawsuit.
You can help with this historic lawsuit by making a tax deductible donation to FAN now.
UPDATE ON H.R. 2422
Lobbying Members of Congress on H.R. 2422 takes our intrepid Clean Water Sonoma-Marin team to some unexpected places in the Capitol Building, Washington DC (September 15, 2017). Photo: Merrilyn Joyce
H.R. 2422, the Action for Dental Health Act of 2018, while carefully written to avoid mentioning water fluoridation, authorizes funding programs to promote fluoridation through 2022 and will cost taxpayers 160 million dollars. Because of Sonoma County emails and calls to our Members of Congress, added to action by concerned citizens across the country, including some of us who went to Washington DC to talk with Congressmen and staff members in person, H.R. 2422 was withdrawn last year, but was reintroduced in 2018. The text, unamended since it was reported to the House on September 25, 2017, was signed into Public Law No: 115-302 on December 11, 2018. For background on H.R. 2422, see Stuart Cooper’s article in the October 2017 issue of the Sonoma County Gazette, “Take Action: Stop or Amend H.R. 2422.”