In a landmark ruling, environmental and public health advocates have achieved a major victory in the ongoing fight against fluoridated drinking water. On September 26, 2024, Food & Water Watch and other advocacy groups succeeded in convincing a federal judge to order the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to revisit its stance on the fluoridation of public water supplies. The lawsuit, which initially began in 2016, challenges the long-held practice of adding fluoride to drinking water—a move once believed to prevent tooth decay but now increasingly associated with various health risks.

Fluoride in Drinking Water: An Overview

Fluoridation of drinking water began in the United States in the mid-20th century as a public health initiative to combat tooth decay, particularly among children. Today, fluoride is still added to water supplies in many U.S. municipalities. It was once hailed as one of the great public health achievements of the 20th century, dramatically reducing cavities and other dental issues.

However, mounting evidence has raised questions about the safety and efficacy of this practice. Recent studies suggest that fluoride may pose several health risks, particularly to developing children. This research has spurred growing concern among scientists, environmentalists, and public health advocates, culminating in the current legal challenges aimed at limiting or banning the addition of fluoride to drinking water. Read my previous posts on fluoride here and here.

The Lawsuit Against the EPA

The recent court ruling represents a significant step in a long-standing legal battle against the EPA over the addition of fluoride to public water systems. The lawsuit, filed by Food & Water Watch along with other advocacy groups, alleges that the EPA failed to adequately consider the scientific evidence suggesting that fluoride is harmful, particularly to children's cognitive development.

Central to the plaintiffs' argument is a 2017 study by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, which concluded that exposure to fluoride in drinking water could reduce children's IQ levels. Additionally, studies have linked fluoride exposure to thyroid problems, bone fractures, and even neurotoxicity. The plaintiffs argue that the EPA has been negligent in updating its regulatory stance in light of this new evidence.

The court's ruling does not ban fluoride outright but requires the EPA to reassess its stance on fluoridation and evaluate the latest scientific findings more rigorously. This marks a significant step forward in the movement to reexamine the safety of water fluoridation, which could lead to substantial changes in public health policy.

Health Concerns Linked to Fluoride

While fluoride was originally added to water to prevent tooth decay, numerous studies have shown that its health risks may outweigh its benefits. One of the most alarming concerns is its impact on brain development. Recent research indicates that high levels of fluoride exposure during pregnancy can lower the IQ of children. A study published in JAMA Pediatrics in 2019 found that higher levels of maternal fluoride exposure were associated with lower IQ scores in their children at ages three and four.

Moreover, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) has expressed concerns about fluoride's neurotoxic potential. As early as 2006, the NTP noted that fluoride had the potential to damage the brain, particularly in high doses. The growing body of evidence prompted the NTP to reexamine the potential harms of fluoride, especially for vulnerable populations such as children and pregnant women.

Beyond cognitive development, fluoride has been linked to skeletal fluorosis—a painful condition caused by excessive fluoride accumulation in the bones. Skeletal fluorosis can lead to joint stiffness, pain, and even fractures, especially in populations exposed to high levels of fluoride over long periods.

Additionally, some research suggests that fluoride may interfere with thyroid function. Fluoride has been shown to reduce the thyroid gland’s ability to produce hormones necessary for regulating metabolism. In individuals with iodine deficiency, the risk of hypothyroidism may increase with elevated fluoride exposure, leading to a range of symptoms, including fatigue, weight gain, and depression.

The Environmental Perspective

Environmental groups have long been concerned about fluoride's potential ecological impacts. Once released into the environment, fluoride can accumulate in soil and water, potentially contaminating crops and affecting local ecosystems. Runoff from fluoridated water supplies can also contribute to elevated fluoride levels in rivers and lakes, posing risks to aquatic life.

Additionally, many environmentalists argue that adding fluoride to water is fundamentally wasteful. Only a small fraction of tap water is consumed directly, meaning that most of the fluoridated water ends up being flushed down drains, used in irrigation, or lost to industrial processes. As such, the environmental cost of fluoridation could far outweigh the public health benefits.

The EPA’s Position and Future Steps

Historically, the EPA has maintained that fluoridation is safe and effective for preventing tooth decay. The agency has repeatedly stated that the benefits of fluoride outweigh the potential risks, citing the reduction in dental cavities as a primary justification for maintaining the practice.

However, the court’s recent ruling compels the EPA to examine the science more closely. The agency will need to review the growing body of research indicating that fluoride exposure may be harmful, particularly for vulnerable populations. This review could lead to significant changes in how the EPA regulates fluoride in drinking water.

In response to the ruling, the EPA has indicated that it will comply with the court's directive to reassess the health risks associated with fluoridated water. Whether this reassessment will lead to significant regulatory changes remains to be seen, but the ruling undoubtedly marks a turning point in the ongoing debate over water fluoridation.

Moving Toward Safer Drinking Water

The court’s ruling against the EPA represents a victory for public health and environmental advocates who have long called for a more cautious approach to fluoridation. While the practice was once considered a public health triumph, the mounting evidence of fluoride's risks—particularly to developing children—cannot be ignored.

As the EPA moves forward with its reassessment of fluoride's safety, there is hope that more stringent regulations will be put in place to protect vulnerable populations. This could ultimately lead to a reduction or elimination of fluoride in drinking water, ensuring that Americans have access to safer, healthier water supplies.

In the meantime, individuals concerned about fluoride exposure can take steps to protect themselves by using water filters that remove fluoride or opting for bottled water that does not contain added fluoride.

Conclusion

The victory in the lawsuit against the EPA marks a critical step forward in the fight for safer drinking water in the United States. As new research continues to highlight the dangers of fluoride, particularly for children, it is essential that public health policies reflect the latest scientific findings. This court ruling represents a move toward greater transparency, accountability, and, ultimately, the protection of public health.

For those interested in learning more about the dangers of fluoride and how to protect their health, organizations like Food & Water Watch are at the forefront of the battle to remove toxic chemicals from our water supply. The hope is that, with continued pressure from the public and advocacy groups, the EPA will take the necessary steps to ensure that future generations are not exposed to harmful levels of fluoride in their drinking water.

To learn more, visit the full article from Food & Water Watch here.