It’s official: the Fluoride Action Network, along with a coalition of environmental and public health groups, has filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in response to their denial of our petition under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) seeking a ban on water fluoridation. This may be the lawsuit we have all been waiting decades for.
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.”
Watch Michael Connett on Fluoride & IQ Studies
Industry, legal, and environmental observers following the EPA’s implementation of the new TSCA law have pointed out that a lawsuit challenging the EPA’s denial of our petition would provide a test case for the agency’s interpretation that petitioners must provide a comprehensive analysis of all uses of a chemical in order to seek a restriction on a particular use. Legal experts have suggested that the EPA’s interpretation essentially makes the requirements for gaining Agency action using section 21 petitions impossible to meet.
New York – November 30, 2016 – A coalition of environmental, medical and health groups have served the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with a Petition calling on the Agency to ban the addition of fluoridation chemicals to public water supplies due to the risks these chemicals pose to the brain, reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).
The Petition, which includes over 2,500 pages of supporting scientific documentation, explains that “the amount of fluoride now regularly consumed by millions of Americans in fluoridated areas exceeds the doses repeatedly linked to IQ loss and other neurotoxic effects.” Signers include FAN, Food & Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, and Moms Against Fluoridation.
“If EPA applies its own risk assessment guidelines to fluoridation, we believe it will agree that fluoridation poses an unacceptably high risk to the brain,” says attorney Michael Connett, FAN legal adviser.
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) authorizes EPA to prohibit the “particular use” of a chemical that presents an unreasonable risk to the general public or susceptible subpopulations. TSCA gives EPA the authority to prohibit drinking water additives.
Subpopulations especially vulnerable to fluoride’s neurotoxic effects include infants, the elderly, kidney patients, and the nutrient deficient (e.g. iodine and calcium). Evidence also suggests that African-Americans may suffer disproportionate harm as well.
Listen to the archived Steve Jaxon interview with Dawna Gallagher of Clean Water Sonoma-Marin and Paul Gullixson, Editor of the Press Democrat about Measure T. Dawna explains how YES on Measure T will require proof of safety for our fluoride. Mr. Gullixson explains the city’s position – “they’re really not interested in proving it’s safe.“
Listen here: YES on T on The Drive with Steve Jaxon – KSRO
A Sonoma County judge spurned an attempt by the City of Healdsburg to alter the voter-approved language of Measure T.
Citing that fulfilling the requirement of obtaining safety documentation for the fluoridation chemical used in Healdsburg’s water would be impossible, the City attempted to change the wording of the ballot measure. Yes on T supporters filed suit, demanding that the ballot language match the language of the petition Healdsburg voters signed, and the courts agreed.
The judge ruled “The evidence demonstrates clearly and convincingly that the [City of Healdsburg’s] proposed ballot question is misleading, inaccurate, and biased, based, as it is, not on the actual wording and stated effect of the measure but on Respondent’s interpretation of what the measure may, in effect, cause. Petitioners’ proposed question, by contrast, tracks the actual language and stated effect of the measure.”
The wording for the ballot measure is: “Shall the City of Healdsburg institute a moratorium on water fluoridation in the city until such time as the manufacturer of the fluoridating chemical provides information regarding the identification of any contaminants in the fluoridating chemical batch, and a toxicological report and verification of safety for the fluoridating chemical?”
To donate or volunteer, contact:
Jeannie Rudd, Campaign Coordinator
Healdsburg for YES on Measure T
707-542-1723 or emails us here.
Truth & Transparency