Is California Water Fluoridation Ruling a Precedent for Ohio?

Is California Water Fluoridation Ruling a Precedent for Ohio?

By Nick Rogers

CHARDON - On September 24, the U.S. District Court of Northern California issued a ruling stating that current Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards for drinking water fluoridation levels present an “unreasonable risk” to the population. The plaintiff’s victory, however – viewed by many as a major milestone in the fight against community water fluoridation – comes with caveats, and government/industry proponents of the practice are doubling down on their decades-long stance. Meanwhile, Ohio – and the rest of the nation – awaits EPA action.

“There’s substantial and scientifically credible evidence establishing that fluoride poses a risk to human health,” Judge Edward Chen, issuer of the 80-page ruling, said.

That evidence includes a study by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) and meta-data analysis from studies conducted in China and India showing the neurologically detrimental effect of fluoride on fetuses and children.

Jeff Landis, a spokesman for the EPA, said the agency was reviewing the decision but offered no further comment.

Fluoride proponents, like University of Maryland Law professor and eastern region director of The Network for Public Health Law Kathleen Hoke, point out that the latter studies were largely conducted in areas where water fluoridation occurs at much higher levels than the .7 milligrams/liter (mg/L) now recommended by the United States Public Health Service (the recommendation was lowered in 2015 from a maximum level of 1.2mg/L).

“Good public health policy is built on decades and decades of scientific review, not junk science,” Hoke said.

The science, however, pointing to fluoride as a legitimate health threat, according to Judge Chen and the plaintiffs in the case (Food and Water Watch, Fluoride Action Network, et. all), is anything but junk. 

“Today’s ruling represents an important acknowledgement of a large and growing body of science indicating serious human health risks associated with fluoridated drinking water…Now the EPA must respond by implementing new regulations that adequately protect all Americans – especially our most vulnerable infants and children – from this known health threat,” Executive Director of Food and Water Watch Wenonah Hauter said.

Despite a growing body of evidence showing that chronic fluoride exposure (even at “low” levels) negatively effects multiple parts of the human body from the endocrine system, bone density, the thyroid and the pineal gland, mainstream institutions like the American Dental Association (ADA), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) are holding firm to their stance that water fluoridation is among the ten greatest public health achievements of the past century

Speaking of great achievements, Ashley Malin of the University of Florida, who has studied the effect of fluoride on pregnant women, called the judge’s decision “…the most historic ruling in the U.S. fluoridation debate that we’ve ever seen.”

The plaintiff’s filed a petition in 2016 with the EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act [TSCA]. The petition was denied, so the organizations were entitled to “de novo” judicial review.

Michael Connet, attorney for the plaintiffs, is encouraged with the precedent the ruling could set and the motivation it may give to other activist groups.

“We’ve certainly shown that this [TSCA] is a powerful law for citizen groups, so we might see an uptick from here,” he said.

FLUORIDE AND OHIO

According to a 2022 CDC report, the state of Ohio ranks 10 in the country for percentage of city-served-water populations receiving fluoridated water; 92.8%. Ohio mandates water fluoridation for communities with populations over 5,000 where the “natural content” of fluoride in the water is less than eight tenths of a milligram per liter. According to the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) website, possible exemptions exist, and a time limit of 240 days is in place for a referendum to reject community water fluoridation. This author has not come upon verification of the exemption claim, but the topic has certainly been hotly debated in Ohio city council sessions. 

In 2012, Athens Ohio Law Director Patrick Lang argued that Ohio citizens, under state law, have no right to vote for or against fluoride in their drinking water if their city meets the population and environmental requirements. It is, he says, a state-by-state issue, not a local one.

“At the end of the day, if the city is not fluoridating at the levels that are required by state law, the (Ohio EPA) director will issue an order of compliance,” Lang Said.

Ibriham Alassaf, who ran as an Independent for Athens County treasurer in 2012, sees the issue as one of precedence.

“If the citizens don’t want it, how can we let a bunch of unelected bureaucrats tell us what to do, which is what the EPA is?”  Alassaf said.

According to FAN’s website, Ohio cities that have rejected water fluoridation include Yellow Springs, Xenia, Springfield, Lancaster, and Wooster. However, a USA Today article published this year – which includes a graphic of the United States featuring un-fluoridated communities in each state – only lists Yellow Springs. Curiously, the graphic’s source is fluoridealert.org, FAN’s website. Yellow Springs, parenthetically, has a population of under 5,000.

Xenia’s Drinking Water Consumer Confidence Report of 2017 states, “We are pleased to report that The City of Xenia’s drinking water continues to meet all federal and state requirements.” Xenia, a city with a population over 20,000 people, does not fluoridate their water, according to the report. The report states, “The naturally occurring fluoride is approximately 20% of the therapeutic dose of 1 mg/L, used in the prevention of dental caries.” This puts the fluoride level of Xenia water at .2 mg/L, below the state-mandated level.

This author has sought clarification on the issue from David Augustine of FAN, but no response has been forthcoming. This author plans on following up with the city councils of the un-fluoridated communities listed on FAN’s website for further comment and clarification on current fluoridation policies/laws and details on the supposed fluoridation exemption process.

Despite the morale boost the California court ruling has given to anti-fluoride activists across the country, a broader examination of the decision strikes an ominously similar chord to another recent ruling against a federal regulatory agency which has bared no legal fruit at all for the “victorious” plaintiffs. 

In 2021, the D.C. district court ruled in favor of Children’s Health Defense and Environmental Health Trust (against the Federal Communications Commission [FCC]), saying that the FCC’s decision not to update its 1996 radio frequency (RF) safety guidelines was irresponsible, and that the justifications for their decision were not science-based. The judgement was remanded to the FCC for further review.

Three years have passed, and the FCC has not released any updated safety guidelines. The fluoride ruling, much like the other, seems to lack legal teeth. While the rulings may have come as public relations blows to these arguably “captured” and corrupt agencies, respectively, it appears that the decisions are, in their current form, simply verbal, documented demands from the judges; essentially, ultimatums with little recourse.

The FCC, for example – an agency filled to the brim with unelected former industry big wigs – has a lot riding on maintaining a public belief that electromagnetic frequencies (EMF) are harmless. The EPA – an organization with a long history of conflicts of interest and toxic coverups – does not look primed to tighten regulation over hydrofluorosilicic acid, the chemical waste product of aluminum and phosphate fertilizers commonly used in “water fluoridation” which has become, parenthetically, the most profitable (and 100% legal) way of disposing of this toxic agent.

Ohio – and the rest of the country – can wait for the EPA to acknowledge fluoride’s toxicity, or citizens and city councils can create new precedent. As Alassaf said, “We could challenge it to the Ohio Supreme Court.” If the EPA won’t protect us, and if the courts won’t truly hold the EPA accountable for actually changing its protective policies, a state Supreme Court verdict may be the best, most plausible – though probably unlikely – avenue for success. Forget the EPA…do you consent? 

Read more