PETITION TO EPA ON FLUORIDE NEUROTOXICITY
November 23, 2016 – PETITION DELIVERED: The International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology (IAOMT), and Fluoride Action Network (FAN), in coalition with others*, hand delivered to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) a petition, accompanied by over 2,500 pages of scientific documentation, to ban the use of fluoridation chemicals because of the neurotoxic risks of fluoride ingestion.
*Petitioners include: American Academy of Environmental Medicine, Food & Water Watch, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Moms Against Fluoridation, Organic Consumers Association, and various individuals.
The Petition was submitted under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) because it authorizes EPA to prohibit the “particular use” of a chemical that presents an unreasonable risk to the general public or susceptible subpopulations. TSCA also gives EPA the authority to prohibit drinking water additives. Full text: 15 USC Ch. 53: TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL From Title 15—COMMERCE AND TRADE
Historically, when a chemical has evidence of neurotoxicity, for example lead, it has been banned. In 2014, EPA added fluoride to its short list of chemicals, including arsenic and lead, with scientific evidence of developmental neurotoxic harm to humans.
The Petition presents a comprehensive list of human, animal and cell studies on fluoride’s neurotoxicity, 196 of the studies published since 2006 alone. The amount of fluoride from all sources, regularly consumed in fluoridated U.S. water districts, exceeds the levels that cause IQ loss. The scientific evidence meets TSCA requirements, more than enough for EPA to halt fluoridation of tap water. The full petition is available here: http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/epa-petition.pdf
From the date the EPA received the petition, it had 90 days to respond.
February 27, 2017 – EPA published its rejection of the petition, on the grounds that the petition failed to address conditions of use other than the fluoridation of drinking water. In so doing, EPA rejected its own policies on neurotoxic risk, which, if applied, would ban the use of fluoridation chemicals.
April 18, 2017 – In response to EPA’s denial of the petition, on behalf of the petitioners, attorneys Michael Connett and James Deal filed a complaint against EPA, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint seeks a ban on water fluoridation, under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The case is now in Federal Court in San Francisco. READ THE OFFICIAL COMPLAINT.
April 18, 2017 – According to FAN’s attorney, Michael Connett, “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.” – Stuart Cooper
October 25, 2017 – The Natural Resources Defense Council and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families filed an Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Neither Party, against the EPA’s stated grounds for dismissal. READ THE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF.
November 30, 2017 – EPA filed a motion to dismiss “all claims in the present matter.” READ THE MOTION TO DISMISS.
December 21, 2017 – US District Judge Edward M. Chen issued an order denying US EPA’s motion to dismiss the complaint. READ THE ORDER DENYING US EPA’S MOTION FOR DISMISSAL. “In a fairly scathing rebuke of EPA’s legal positions, the court denied EPA’s motion to dismiss the petitioner’s judicial challenge of EPA’s administrative denial of the Section 21 petition and, in so doing, essentially rejected EPA’s interpretation that a citizen petition must evaluate all conditions of use of a chemical substance in a TSCA Section 6(b) risk evaluation.” – National Law Review (12/23/2017. Read the National Law Review article for a more complete explanation and discussion of Judge Chen’s order.
AND THERE WE ARE. WE’LL KEEP YOU POSTED.