The choice to attraction got here from the solicitor basic on the DOJ, who reviews to Pam Bondi and the White Home. In February, a federal choose dominated in opposition to the EPA, concluding that water fluoridation at present ranges poses an unreasonable threat to kids’s well being and ordering the EPA to
The U.S. Environmental Safety Company (EPA) plans to attraction a choice final 12 months by a federal court docket ordering the company to handle the dangers of water fluoridation, in response to Michael Connett, lead lawyer for plaintiffs within the lawsuit.
“Moderately than use the court docket’s choice as a possibility to lastly finish water fluoridation (as most of Europe has already finished), the EPA will spend its time legally difficult the court docket’s order,” Connett wrote in a put up on X.
After a number of extensions, the Trump Administration has determined to attraction the federal court docket choice ordering EPA to handle the chance posed by water fluoridation. EPA might be submitting its attraction subsequent Friday, July 18.
Moderately than use the court docket’s choice as a possibility to…
— Michael Connett (@michaelpconnett) July 11, 2025
The American Chemistry Council, a commerce group representing the chemical trade, and the American Fluoridation Society, a fluoridation advocacy group that touts its work undermining native efforts to oppose water fluoridation, filed motions in search of to submit amicus briefs supporting the EPA attraction, he mentioned.
Connett advised The Defender that the American Dental Affiliation additionally plans to file a quick.
The EPA mentioned it is going to file the attraction on July 18, after which the case will go to a three-judge panel within the ninth Circuit U.S. Courtroom of Appeals. The appeals court docket will obtain briefs from each side, together with any amicus briefs, and listen to oral arguments earlier than issuing its choice.
The Fluoride Motion Community (FAN), one of many plaintiffs within the lawsuit in opposition to the EPA, mentioned on X that the attraction was “a really disappointing transfer by EPA.” “Just a few months in the past, @epaleezeldin went on a public talking tour with @SecKennedy to handle why fluoride wants to come back OUT of the water. Now the EPA will attraction to maintain fluoride IN consuming water.”
Connett famous that the choice to attraction got here from the solicitor basic on the U.S. Division of Justice (DOJ), who reviews to Pam Bondi and the White Home, not by the U.S. Division of Well being and Human Companies (HHS) or by Well being Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has vocally opposed water fluoridation, however lacks the authority to finish it.
“Solely the EPA has this energy, and it has determined, for now, to forego its historic alternative (as supplied by the court docket’s choice) to train it,” Connett mentioned.
The Facilities for Illness Management and Prevention publishes suggestions from the U.S. Public Well being Service on whether or not communities ought to add fluoride to their consuming water and at what ranges. Nevertheless, the EPA units the utmost ranges allowed in water beneath the Protected Consuming Water Act.
The present most allowable ranges of fluoride in consuming water are 4.0 milligrams per liter (mg/L), which is many orders of magnitude increased than the at present advisable dosage of 0.7 mg/L.
Even the decrease advisable dosage has demonstrated a threat to kids’s well being in quite a few research, and in response to the federal ruling that the EPA plans to problem.
EPA continues to deal with fluoride as a ‘protected pollutant’
In September 2024, U.S. District Choose Edward Chen issued the historic choice within the lawsuit in opposition to the EPA, ruling that water fluoridation at present U.S. ranges poses an “unreasonable threat” of lowered IQ in kids and that the EPA should take regulatory motion to handle that threat.
On the time of the ruling, greater than 200 million Individuals have been consuming water handled with fluoride on the “optimum” degree of 0.7 mg/L.
Chen dominated {that a} preponderance of scientific proof confirmed this degree of fluoride publicity might harm human well being, significantly that of pregnant moms and younger kids.
Environmental and shopper advocacy organizations, together with FAN, Mothers In opposition to Fluoridation and Meals & Water Watch, together with particular person mother and father and youngsters, filed the lawsuit in opposition to the EPA in 2017 beneath the Poisonous Substances Management Act (TSCA) after the EPA denied their residents’ petition to reexamine water fluoridation.
Throughout the trial that adopted, Chen reviewed current laws, regulatory frameworks and present science on fluoride’s dangers to kids and pregnant girls introduced by way of peer-reviewed papers and specialists on each side.
The case dragged on for seven years, after quite a few delays by the EPA, and makes an attempt by HHS officers to dam the discharge of the important thing piece of proof within the case, a authorities report on fluoride’s toxicity.
Chen’s 80-page ruling, issued seven months after closing arguments in February 2024, provided a cautious and detailed articulation of the EPA’s overview course of for hazardous chemical substances and summarized the in depth scientific knowledge on fluoride’s toxicity.
Chen concluded that the chance to well being at present ranges of publicity demanded a regulatory response by the company.
Proof in opposition to fluoride retains piling up
Because the finish of the trial, the physique of scientific proof exhibiting fluoride’s adversarial impacts on kids’s well being has grown. Scientists on the Nationwide Toxicology Program in January revealed a meta-analysis in JAMA Pediatrics linking fluoridated water and IQ loss in kids.
This system additionally revealed a monograph in August 2024 that discovered a hyperlink between increased fluoride publicity and decrease IQ in kids.
In Might 2024, a examine in JAMA Open Community discovered kids born to Los Angeles moms uncovered throughout being pregnant to fluoridated consuming water have been extra more likely to have neurobehavioural issues.
FAN’s govt director, Stuart Cooper, mentioned the group has lengthy sought to finish the “pointless life-long and life-altering mind impairment in kids particularly on account of synthetic fluoridation schemes” and the various different unintended effects to individuals’s liver, kidneys, thyroid and bones.
For 9 years, he mentioned, the EPA has been working in opposition to them. “From day one in all our interactions with them, they’ve handled fluoridation chemical substances as a protected pollutant, probably as a result of authorities’s function in selling their use and guaranteeing their ‘security’ for over 80 years.”
Cooper added:
“Whereas the science is obvious and the decrease court docket’s ruling was very sturdy and complete, it’s not essentially a shock that the attraction has occurred. Our case is precedent-setting. We have been the primary to sue the EPA beneath TSCA. I believe that company polluters who’ve realized learn how to handle and affect the EPA to their profit don’t need residents teams to make use of TSCA to power the EPA to control dangerous chemical substances.”
One other plaintiff within the lawsuit, Mothers In opposition to Fluoridation, advised The Defender it was“deeply dissatisfied” that the EPA plans to attraction the ruling.
“The science is obvious, and our lawsuit’s findings are simple: fluoridation is a poisonous legacy that should finish, like asbestos, DDT, and lead,” it mentioned. “The company’s plan to attraction solely underscores their prioritization of trade pursuits over the well-being of our kids and weak populations. Mothers In opposition to Fluoridation won’t again down — we’ll proceed to struggle tirelessly for the well being and security of all Individuals.”
60+ cities and counties and two states vote to finish fluoridation
Because the federal ruling final 12 months, greater than 60 U.S. cities, counties and two states — Utah and Florida — have voted to cease fluoridating their water, in response to FAN.
Throughout that point, there was an ongoing marketing campaign by the American Dental Affiliation, the American Fluoridation Society and mainstream media to discredit the court docket’s ruling.
Usually, they assert that water fluoridation is a vital, secure and efficient approach to stop tooth decay — and that with out it, charges of cavities will soar, costing billions. They cite a examine revealed by researchers funded by pro-fluoridation teams.
But, overwhelming scientific analysis reveals that fluoride’s advantages to tooth are topical, not the results of ingesting fluoride, and a 2024 Cochrane Evaluation discovered including fluoride to consuming water offers very restricted dental advantages, particularly in contrast with 50 years in the past.
Most media reviews additionally spotlight the truth that fluoride is a “naturally occurring mineral.” Nevertheless, they don’t point out that the fluoride added to water provides just isn’t.
The fluoride mostly added to U.S. consuming water provides is hydrofluorosilicic acid, the byproduct of phosphate fertilizer manufacturing. Chemical corporations promote the byproduct to native water departments throughout the nation.
Communities which have not too long ago ended fluoridation have discovered themselves saddled with a chemical that they have to eliminate as hazardous waste, per EPA laws — an costly and time-consuming course of.
Associated articles in The Defender