Trial begins in lawsuit linking fluoride exposure to decreased IQ in children

Fluoride trial overview: 

• Who: Environmental groups including Food and Water Watch and the Fluoride Action Network had their bench trial start in a case against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  
• Why: The groups want the EPA to ban fluoride in public drinking water after a fluoride IQ study showed that fluoride exposure to young children can cause lower IQ scores, Law360 reports.
• Where: The fluoride trial is in California federal court.

Environmental groups claimed at the start of a bench trial in a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that a fluoride IQ study showed fluoride exposure in pregnant women is linked to lower IQ scores for their children, according to Law360.

The groups, which include Food and Water Watch and the Fluoride Action Network, are asking the court to force the EPA to ban local governments’ decades-old practice of adding fluoride to drinking water.

The EPA, however, defended its existing standards by stating that fluoride is only dangerous in high doses.

The fluoride trial, which is in front of U.S. District Judge Edward Chen, originated with an April 2017 lawsuit against the EPA.

Fluoride trial was delayed for 4 years so EPA could further study risks

Local municipalities have long added fluoride to public water supplies in order to boost dental health. According to the National Institutes of Health, the first instance of a local government adding fluoride to its water supply was in 1945, when Grand Rapids, Michigan, fluoridated its water to a level of 1 part per million.

However, the fluoride IQ study referenced in the fluoride trial challenges the safety of the practice. The EPA previously denied a petition from the groups that filed the lawsuit. In 2020, Judge Chen opted to delay proceedings in the trial while the EPA conducted another study to evaluate the risks of fluoride.

Tom’s of Maine is accused of falsely advertising that a fluoride-free toothpaste controls plaque when it allegedly does not.

Do you believe fluoride should be added to public drinking water? What do you think of the fluoride lawsuit? Let us know in the comments.

The plaintiffs are represented by C. Andrew Waters and Michael Connett of Waters Kraus & Paul and Christopher T. Nidel of Nidel and Nace PLLC. 

The defendant is represented by Brandon N. Adkins and Paul A. Caintic of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Environment and Natural Resources Division and Emmet P. Ong of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California. 

The fluoride lawsuit is Food and Water Watch Inc., et al. v. EPA, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-02162, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Flint residents reach $25M settlement with Veolia
• New study links more cancers to Camp Lejeune tainted water
• Real Water liver failure claims go to trial
• Fiji class action alleges water contains microplastics