Over the last two weeks, the U.S. Federal Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco was home (virtually) to a groundbreaking lawsuit bringing the safety of fluoride into question and could spell the beginning of the end of water fluoridation in America, potentially affecting drinking water for hundreds of millions of people across the U.S.
Fluoride Action Network, along with a group of other non-profits and individuals, had petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to end the addition of fluoridation chemicals into drinking water due to fluoride's neurotoxicity, under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The EPA rejected the petition and in response, the groups sued the EPA in Federal Court. One key thing about this case is that the positive or pros of fluoride cannot be discussed. This trial was only dealing with the issue of neurotoxicity of the chemical used, including its effect of lowering children’s IQs.
While the Judge requested additional xxxxxxrmation, given the initial petition was filed in 2016 and new evidence and cohort studies that both sides agree to be the best available science have emerged. The case will continue August 6th, 2020. However, even without a verdict yet, the past two weeks of this court case has proven to be a first of many victories for removing fluoride from household water. Until now, those, like AVFCA, questioning the risks of fluoridation have been ignored, ridiculed and rebutted with the claim that the science is settled and that water fluoridation is one of the ten great public health achievements (sound familiar). But the overwhelming evidence is there that fluoride is neurotoxic and that is now on legal record.
For more details, below is a day-by-day summary of the trail, put together by Clean Water Silicon Valley, who attended the trial daily. There is an even more detailed commentary on the Fluoride Action Network site: http://fluoridealert.org/issues/tsca-fluoride-trial/daily-comments-on-the-tsca-trial/
Daily Trial Summary
June 8th ~ The trial kicked off today with opening arguments at 8am (Pacific Standard time) with Judge Edward M. Chen presiding. Two top experts in children's brain development Drs Howard Hu and Bruce Lanphear made clear that their extensive studies indicate that fluoride has the potential to lower the IQ of children. The defendants (EPA) seemed to struggle with their testimony. What highly favors the Plaintiff's case against the EPA here is that this agency has relied on both of these experts. Dr. Lanphear is the EPA's "go-to-man" on lead's neurotoxicity, and his work shaped their lead standards. In the case of Dr. Howard Hu, the EPA partially funded his groundbreaking work on fluoride. The EPA was reminded that no discussion about the proposed benefits of fluoride are allowed, as this trial only focuses on the neurotoxicity of the chemical added to public water systems and is it safe to ingest. Great first day...
June 9th ~ Trial started today at 8:11. One of the three experts the EPA sought to exclude from the trial, Dr. Philippe Grandjean of Harvard and the University of Southern Denmark, gave testimony on the scientific studies pointing to fluoride’s neurotoxicity in children whose mothers ingested higher levels of fluoride during pregnancy, such as pregnant women living in communities with fluoridated water. The EPA asked the court to impeach and exclude Dr. Grandjeans testimony in full based on not following the EPA’s Risk Evaluation Rule. Their motion was denied. His testimony stands. Dr. Grandjean suggested the EPA work to collaborate with the rest of the world in analyzing data to evaluate this very serious environmental health issue. Court adjourned at 1:42
June 10 ~ Trial began at 8:32.Today continued to focus on the many scientific studies pointing to fluoride’s neurotoxicity. We heard testimony from Drs Howard Hu, Bruce Lamphear, Kathleen Thiessen, Casey Hannan, Director of Oral Health Division at the CDC, and Dr. Kristina Thayer, EPA Director of Chemical Division. The witnesses agreed that the developing brain is much more vulnerable to toxins and what happens during childhood has a huge impact that can carry thru to adulthood. Samples used in studies and the measurement of fluoride in water were not based on any one average from one community, but on actual fluoride levels from water treatment plants from many zip codes. Compelling testimony came from CDCs Dr. Hannan, whose position is to prevent oral disease thru a population based approach. When asked “What has the CDC done (if anything) to determine the TOLERABLE FLUORIDE INTAKE FOR NEUROTOXIC EFFECTS.” His response was “The CDC has not conducted or sponsored any research concerning the risk of neurotoxicity associated with exposure to fluoridated water”. When asked how the CDC would go about changing its position to look at updated data? Response was “That is under the jurisdiction of the EPA and requires an intergoverment review”. The CDC, EPA, FDA and ADA all promote public water fluoridation, but does not oversee or monitor any hazards that exist. So the question is: WHO WILL VOUCH FOR THE SAFETY OF FLUORIDATING CHEMICALS? No One… Court Adjourned 1:33
June 12th ~ Trail commenced at 8:31.The defense council (EPA) started the day with cross examination of witness testimony by Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, one of the 12 panelists on the U.S. National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, 2006 publication on Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards. Dr. Thiessen did state that “Fluoride has a legitimate use that does not involve exposure to the public in ways that are hazardous to health”. Afterwards the EPA called on their witness testimony from Drs. Kristina Thayer of the EPA and Joyce Tsuji, a toxicologist with a PhD in Environmental Physiology and an employee of Exponent, a for profit corporation funded by industry. According to Dr. Tsuji's testimony, most of her work since 1998 has been on arsenic exposure and prior to this case she did not consider herself to be an expert on fluoride toxicity. Yet in 2018 after the suit was filed, the EPA approached her to be an expert in this case. Court adjourned at 1:31.
June 15th ~ Trial started today at 8:30. The defendants (EPA) conclude with Dr. Joyce Tsuji and called upon another Exponent employee to create more uncertainty about science. Dr. Ellen Chang, an epidemiologist with no published studies on fluoride and who prior to this case also did not consider herself an expert on fluoride in human health or on its toxicity spoke. Today she gave testimony that all the peer reviewed ~ published studies that report adverse reactions to fluoride, carried little weight in her “Expert” assessment. While I understand that subjectivity to bias can go both ways and that scientists can be opinionated like anybody else and oftentimes will adhere to their own theories, today showed that one does what industry wants and for a price the purpose of research is to disprove it, even if the evidence shows otherwise. Court adjourned at 1:48.
June 16th ~ Trial started at 1:30. The plaintiff’s counsel finished with cross examination of Dr. Ellen Chang. Afterwards the final witness testimony came from Dr. Tala Henry, an employee of the EPA with a PhD in Pharmacology. She explained the differences of a Risk Assessment vs. Risk Evaluation and how the EPA uses these risk standards in rule making decisions. When asked if the EPA could provide a comprehensive study that they conducted on intake data, the response was “ The EPA has no human data at any level of fluoride exposure to make a risk determination ”. Dr. Henry did struggle with her testimony as it contradicted her deposition on many occasions. Data and research was discussed on the published fluoride cohort studies as was the weight of scientific evidence and best available science. Tomorrow the trial will conclude as we will hear closing arguments and findings in view of evidence from Judge Edward Chen. Court adjourned at 4:57
June 17th ~ Trial started at 8:30. Today concluded the nearly 2 week hearing on whether water fluoridation violates the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Michael Connett of F.A.N focused his closing on the evidence by stating that there are 3 key questions that needed to be answered: 1) Is there a hazard. 2) Is there a risk and is the risk Unreasonable? He went on to share quotes from witness testimony, first from the CDC that “It is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the brain” (NRC 2006) and followed with that of Dr. Joyce Donohue, an EPA Staff Scientist who stated that “NIH studies warrant a reassessment of all existing fluoride standards”. Afterwards Mr. Connett ended with “I believe that the preponderance of evidence in this case has demonstrated that fluoridation chemicals present an unreasonable risk of harm” and he thanked Judge Chen for the opportunity to present his case. Next came the closing from the D.O.J’s Defense Counsel, Debra Carfora who began by asking the court to deny the plaintiffs claim on grounds of being overbroad and too simplistic. Ms. Carfora continued to explain that the plaintiffs failed to meet the two components that warrant a hazard assessment - hazard identification and dose response. She mentioned that the plaintiffs lacked standing and failed to meet the Risk Assessment under a systematic review of the evidence and that more data was needed. Now for Judge Edward Chen's finding, Judge Chen has put a pause on further proceedings as new data about fluorides health risks emerge to allow the EPA to take a serious look at this new evidence and asked both parties to return on Aug 6th. Stay tuned… Court adjourned 11:43
Let’s hope the judge does the right thing on August 6th.
C
If you found this xxxxxxrmation helpful and appreciate the work A Voice for Choice Advocacy is doing, please support us by making a donation today.
Christina Hildebrand
President/Founder
A Voice for Choice Advocacy, Inc.
www.avoiceforchoiceadvocacy.org
408 835 9353
WWW.AVOICEFORCHOICEADVOCACY.ORG
You are receiving this email because you have signed up on the AVFC or AVFCA website or on a sign up list in person. If you would like to be removed from receiving all emails, please reply to this email with “Unsubscribe” in the email subject line. If you would prefer just to get Action Alerts, please reply to this email with “Action Alert Only” in the email subject line.