Tag: fluoride

Federal Court Strikes Down Landmark Fluoride Ruling on Technicality — ‘Not the Science’

Citing a procedural question, a federal appeals court has vacated a landmark decision that found fluoridated drinking water poses an “unreasonable risk” to children’s health. The court sent the case back to the district judge and ordered him to ignore any scientific evidence uncovered after 2020. Attorney Michael Connett told The Defender the court instructed the judge “to travel back in time to 2020 and make this ruling based on a stale factual record.”

A federal appeals court has vacated a landmark decision that found fluoridated drinking water poses an “unreasonable risk” to children’s health under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

The decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not challenge the substance of the lower court’s findings — that fluoride is toxic to children and ought to be regulated. Instead, the court based its decision on procedural issues related to the lower court’s handling of the litigation.

The case will now go back to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where District Judge Edward Chen will be required to exclude all scientific evidence that became available after 2020.

Michael Connett, attorney for the plaintiffs, told The Defender the court “instructed Judge Chen to travel back in time to 2020 and make this ruling based on a stale factual record.”

Connett said the directive to ignore years’ worth of evidence on fluoride’s dangers runs counter to the intent of the TSCA — which is to protect hundreds of millions of Americans from substances that are harmful to human health.

The federal appeals court ruling, handed down late Thursday, stemmed from a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) brought by consumer advocacy groups including Food & Water Watch, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), and Moms Against Fluoridation.

The groups sued after the EPA refused to consider their 2016 citizens’ petition asking the agency to regulate fluoride.

After two bench trials, Chen ruled that fluoride at the federally recommended concentration of 0.7 milligrams/liter (mg/L) posed an “unreasonable risk” to children’s health and ordered the EPA to regulate it accordingly.

However, the 9th Circuit panel said the lower court violated the “party presentation principle” — a legal doctrine requiring courts to act as neutral arbiters rather than taking control of a case’s factual development.

Connett said the decision was “a very expansive and unprecedented application of the party presentation principle.” He said that to date, “this principle has really only been applied to situations where judges raise new legal issues, not where judges use procedural mechanisms to resolve the issues presented.”

Under the TSCA, if the EPA denies a citizen petition, petitioners have the right to sue the agency. The law is unique because it specifies that the court then evaluates whether the chemical in question presents an unreasonable risk to health or the environment in a “de novo” proceeding, during which it evaluates evidence presented by both sides and gives no deference to the agency.

Rather than ruling after the first trial in 2020, Chen put the trial on hold, pending the release of a multiyear government study into fluoride’s neurotoxic effects, so he could base his decision on all available evidence.

Keep reading

Iran war throttles global fluoride supply, impacting US waterworks

Fluoride is becoming harder to source as the war in Iran places more strain on global supply chains, leading some local governments to reduce their own use of the widely used cavity-fighting agent. Two major water supply systems in Maryland, which serve the Baltimore and suburban D.C. areas, announced this month they would be temporarily reducing the concentration of fluoride, citing the conflict in the Middle East as the cause of a wider national shortage. A Pennsylvania town halted fluoridation for at least a few weeks, also citing the war.

According to chemical suppliers and trade groups, the shortage was brought on by a confluence of supply chain disruptions as well as higher transportation costs resulting from the conflict in the Middle East.

“Some of the suppliers around the nation have either taken their supply offline or severely shortened it, or it’s gone into other streams, like not to municipal streams. And there’s only a few fluoride manufacturers in the nation,” said Emily Horne, a spokesperson for Pencco, which has supplied the Baltimore-area waterworks.

Lowering the concentration from the federally recommended 0.7 mg/L to 0.4 mg/L, the city’s Department of Public Works said this decision was brought on by “broader national supply chain disruptions, driven in part by ongoing conflict in the Middle East.” The war in Iran and the associated standoff in the Strait of Hormuz have impacted U.S. fluoride levels, as Israel is one of the major global suppliers of the chemical used in water systems, fluorosilicic acid.

Keep reading

P&G agrees to stop deceptive marketing of Crest toothpaste to kids

Procter & Gamble (P&G) agreed to change how it markets Crest fluoride toothpaste to young children following an agreement with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Under the agreement, P&G’s advertising aimed at children under age 6 must reflect age-appropriate amounts of toothpaste. The changes took effect this month.

Health authorities, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the American Dental Association (ADA), and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), recommend that children under age 3 use no more than a “smear” of fluoride toothpaste, and that children ages 3 to 6 use only a “pea-sized” amount.

Paxton said Crest’s marketing materials often showed toothbrushes covered with a full strip of toothpaste, implying that amount was appropriate for children.

Research cited in the case shows such images prompt parents to use excessive amounts of toothpaste. A 2024 study published in Nature found parents routinely overloaded toothbrushes by six to seven times the recommended amount.

Keep reading

Fluoride Lawsuit Plaintiffs Push Back Against Trump EPA In Ongoing Litigation

On November 17, 2025, attorneys representing Food & Water Watch (FWW), Fluoride Action Network (FAN), and individual plaintiffs filed its response to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) appeal of U.S. District Judge Edward Chen’s September 2024 ruling, which held that fluoridation at the current U.S. level of 0.7 mg/L “poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children.”

The response comes nine years after the plaintiffs first filed a civilian petition under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in November 2016. After the EPA denied the petition, the groups sued, triggering a nearly decade-long legal saga between the EPA, and parents of children impacted by water fluoridation, the FAN, and FWW. In September 2024, Judge Chen ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor and ordered the EPA to take regulatory action.

In the final days of the Biden administration the EPA filed their appeal, and now, under leadership appointed by President Donald Trump, the EPA has decided to continue fighting the judge’s ruling.

Michael Connett, the lead attorney representing the plaintiffs, responded to the three main arguments made by the EPA in its July appeal: that the plaintiffs lack standing, that the judge improperly considered new evidence, and that the district court went beyond its authority in its management of the case.

The EPA contends that at least one plaintiff’s water contains naturally occurring fluoride and that the plaintiffs therefore cannot prove injury caused by community water fluoridation. The agency also claims that the Judge’s decision to admit studies which were published after the original 2016 TSCA petition violated the act.

Regarding the question of standing, the EPA claimed in its appeal that plaintiff Jessica Trader cannot establish standing because her drinking water in Leawood, Kansas, “naturally contains fluoride at levels 0.4 mg/L, and her water utility adds only as much fluoride as necessary for her tap water to reach a concentration of 0.7 mg/L”. Essentially, the EPA is stating that the naturally occurring fluoride could be to blame for any harm caused to Trader.

Connett argues that the plaintiffs do indeed have proper standing and have demonstrated sufficient injury and connection to the case. “Even if the new “facts” are considered, Jessica Trader’s injury is still traceable/redressable: the district court found (and EPA does not dispute) that fluoridation poses a credible threat of neurodevelopmental harm to her children, and regulatory action would, at a minimum, reduce that threat, including the costs of avoiding it,” Connett wrote in his response.

He further noted that, even without Trader, the remaining plaintiffs also have standing based on credible threats of harm from fluoridation, as supported by findings from the National Research Council (NRC), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and National Toxicology Program (NTP).

When it comes to the EPA’s claim that the court improperly considered new evidence in the form of studies published after the original petition, Connett reminded the court that Section 21 of TSCA provides that petitioners “shall be provided an opportunity to have such petition considered by the court in a de novo proceeding”. A de novo proceeding is a legal process where a case is heard “fresh” or from the beginning, without considering the previous court’s decision.

Keep reading

EPA Accused Of Protecting Itself, Not Public Health, As Water Fluoridation Battle Heats Up

The legal battle over fluoridated drinking water escalated today when attorneys for Food & Water Watch (FWW), Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and other plaintiffs filed a brief accusing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of trying “to protect the EPA from the public” rather than protecting public health.

The outcome of the agency’s appeal will shape federal oversight of community water fluoridation and also determine how much power citizens have to force regulatory action when new scientific evidence emerges.

At the center of the dispute is the citizen petition process, which allows citizens to file lawsuits demanding restrictions on toxic chemicals that aren’t effectively regulated. Congress created the process under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

In July, when the EPA appealed a 2024 federal court ruling that ordered it to take action to address the risk posed by water fluoridation, the agency didn’t challenge the court’s finding that current fluoridation levels pose an “unreasonable risk” of neurodevelopmental harm to children.

Keep reading

Trump’s EPA Continues Biden Admin Appeal of Historic Fluoride Ruling

While claiming to support the MAHA movement, the EPA under Trump has now taken steps to undo last year’s historic ruling which found that fluoride poses a risk to the neurodevelopment of children.

On Friday, the Environmental Protection Agency officially appealed a federal court ruling which ordered the agency to take action against the risks posed by fluoridation chemicals.

The EPA staked their appeal on three main arguments, including a belief that the plaintiffs’ lack standing, the judge improperly considered new evidence, and the district court went beyond its authority in its management of the case.

The EPA’s appeal is the latest development in a nearly decade-long legal saga between the EPA, and parents of children impacted by water fluoridation, as well as the Fluoride Action Network (FAN). The lawsuit began following the EPA’s 2016 decision to deny the plaintiff’s petition under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). In September 2024, Judge Edward Chen found that fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligram per liter “poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children”.

Chen said the risk is sufficient to require the EPA to enact a regulatory response. However, he said that TSCA only granted him the authority to direct the EPA to take action against the risk, but not to prescribe the specifics of its response, which could range from a national warning to an outright ban.

In the final days of the Biden administration the EPA filed their appeal, and now, under leadership appointed by President Donald Trump, the EPA has decided to continue fighting the judge’s ruling.

Keep reading

FDA Says It Plans to Remove Some Fluoride Drugs for Children From Market

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans to remove ingestible prescription drugs for children that contain fluoride, the agency announced on May 13.

The ingestible products have been linked to issues such as a disrupted gut microbiome.

“The best way to prevent cavities in children is by avoiding excessive sugar intake and good dental hygiene, not by altering a child’s microbiome. For the same reason that fluoride may kill bacteria on teeth, it may also kill intestinal bacteria important for a child’s health,” Dr. Marty Makary, commissioner of the FDA, said in a statement.

Researchers reported in a review article in March that multiple studies have found that the gut microbiota was negatively impacted in people who ingested high amounts of fluoride, a disruption that can lead to problems such as cancer.

The FDA said it plans to complete a safety review by Oct. 31 before “taking appropriate action regarding removal of these products from the market.” At the same time, its parent agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, is planning to provide the public with guidance on strong dental hygiene for children that does not alter gut health.

“Ending the use of ingestible fluoride is long overdue,” Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a statement. “I’m grateful to Commissioner Makary for his leadership on this vital issue—one that directly safeguards the health and development of our children.”

Keep reading

Florida Set to Become 2nd State to Ban Fluoride in Drinking Water

Florida is poised to become the second state to ban fluoride in public drinking water under legislation that received final approval from lawmakers on April 29, ending a decades-old practice that has divided dentists and health officials.

The ban on fluoride is part of the Florida Farm Bill SB700, which passed the House in an 88–27 vote. It passed the state Senate on April 16.

Though the measure does not explicitly include the word “fluoride,” it does include a provision that seeks to ban “the use of certain additives in a water system” throughout the state.

The legislation now heads to the desk of Gov. Ron DeSantis, who is expected to sign it into law.

Florida lawmakers approved the legislation after Utah became the first state in the country to ban fluoride in public drinking water on March 28.

That legislation prohibits any person or government entity from adding fluoride to water systems in the state. It is set to go into effect on May 7.

Keep reading

Profanity-ridden Emails, Misuse of CDC Funds: How Big Fluoride Tries to Prevent Towns From Cleaning Up Their Water

When Washburn, North Dakota’s town commissioners decided in January to take up the issue of whether or not to continue fluoridating the water supply for the town’s 1,300 residents, they anticipated researching the risks versus benefits and putting the matter to a vote.

What they didn’t anticipate — but soon encountered — was evidence of a coordinated effort by state actors and a national fluoride lobby group, using federal money, to crush local efforts by small towns like Washburn to stop fluoridating their water supplies.

On Monday night, town commissioners voted 4-1 to stop adding fluoride to Washburn’s water supply — making Washburn the latest in a growing list of communities across the country to end the practice in light of mounting scientific evidence that the chemical harms children’s health and provides little or no dental benefit.

At the meeting, Commissioner Keith Hapip shared what he said was evidence of astroturfing by Dr. Johnny Johnson, president of the American Fluoridation Society; Jim Kershaw, Bismarck, North Dakota’s water plant superintendent and others.

“Astroturfing is when a group with money and power pretends to be regular folks supporting something, but it’s really a planned push from the top,” Hapip said. “Real grassroots come from the community naturally. And here, the oral health program used CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] cash to manufacture support for fluoridation in Washburn.”

Johnson phoned into the meeting to advocate for water fluoridation. In response, the commission also hosted a presentation by Michael Connett — the attorney who represented the plaintiffs who won alandmark ruling in a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the agency’s failure to appropriately regulate fluoride use in water supplies.

Dr. Griffin Cole, conference chairman of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, who has expertise on fluoride’s toxic effects, also made a presentation.

Interviews by The Defender with grassroots actors across the country revealed that for years, Johnson, one of the country’s foremost advocates of water fluoridation, has been intervening in grassroots efforts to end fluoridation in their communities.

He and colleagues — in this case, Kershaw — travel physically or virtually to meetings in towns across the country.

Keep reading

Yet Another Study Links Water Fluoridation to Developmental Issues in Kids

Children exposed to fluoridated water before the age of ten have a higher risk of a number of serious neurodevelopmental issues, a new study suggests.

The paper, published in BMC Pediatrics, shows that autism-spectrum disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, intellectual disability and other delays in development were all visible at higher rates among children exposed to fluoridated water before their tenth birthday.

The researchers behind the study, David and Mark Geier, are warning that the risks of water fluoridation must be carefully reassessed.

They analyzed data from the Independent Healthcare Research Database, taken from de-identified healthcare records from the Florida Medicaid System during the period 1990-2012.

Since some counties in Florida have municipal fluoridation and others don’t, they were able to compare the health of children exposed to water fluoridation for their whole lives—over 25,000 children—with the health of around 2,500 children who weren’t.

The researchers examined fluoride exposure and health outcomes during the first year and the first ten years of life.

The results showed that in the first year of life, there was a statistically significant decrease in the risk of tooth decay with exposure to fluoridated water, as well as a statistically significant increase in the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders.

The ten-year results were much more striking. After ten years of fluoride exposure, the risk of tooth decay was nearly four times lower in exposed children, but the children had a significantly higher risk of developmental disorders—nearly seven times greater for autism and two times greater for intellectual disability, most notably.

Keep reading