Health
Federal judge orders EPA further regulate fluoride in drinking water due to concerns over lowered IQ in kids
It has been added to municipal water for decades, but a federal judge in California has ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to further regulate fluoride because high levels could pose “an unreasonable risk” to the intellectual development of children.
U.S. District Judge Edward Chen ruled Tuesday that the scientific evidence of fluoride’s health risks when ingested at current prescribed levels requires stricter regulation under the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The act provides a legal pathway for citizens to petition the EPA to consider whether an industrial chemical presents health risks.
Chen, in his 80-page ruling, wrote there is “little dispute” over whether fluoride is hazardous and ordered the EPA to take steps to lower that risk, but didn’t say what those measures should be.
“Indeed, EPA’s own expert agrees that fluoride is hazardous at some level of exposure,” the judge said. “And ample evidence establishes that a mother’s exposure to fluoride during pregnancy is associated with IQ decrements in her offspring.”
FLUORIDE IN WATER LINKED TO LOWER INTELLIGENCE
“Between 1981 and 1984, fluoride’s association with adverse effects including osteosclerosis, enamel fluorosis, and psychological and behavioral problems was contested,” Chen said.
At the same time, he wrote that the court’s finding “does not conclude with certainty that fluoridated water is injurious to public health,” Chen said. “Rather, as required by the Amended TSCA, the Court finds there is an unreasonable risk of such injury, a risk sufficient to require the EPA to engage with a regulatory response.
“This order does not dictate precisely what that response must be. Amended TSCA leaves that decision in the first instance to the EPA. One thing the EPA cannot do, however, in the face of this Court’s finding, is to ignore that risk,” Chen added.
“If the Court finds anew that the chemical at issue presents an unreasonable risk, it then orders the EPA to engage in rulemaking regarding the chemical,” the judge said. “The EPA is afforded in the first instance the authority to respond; regulatory actions can range from requiring a mere warning label to banning the chemical.”
An EPA spokesperson, Jeff Landis, told The Associated Press that the agency was reviewing the decision but offered no further comment.