Watch: Water fluoridation was a 'sacred cow' — what happens next?
By newseditors // 2024-10-07
Copy
 
For years, even as he worked in nonprofit organizations like the American Cancer Society and Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, Rick North didn’t suspect water fluoridation was hazardous to human health. (Article by Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. republished from ChildrensHealthDefense.org) “I always thought fluoridation was fine,” North said. “All I’d ever heard was, ‘It’s safe and effective.’” But when North received a phone call 12 years ago from a friend who asked him to review the science on water fluoridation — specifically a 2006 report by the National Academy of Sciences — what he ended up reading “was unbelievable,” he said. “Right away I could see this [science] was a direct contradiction to the statements from fluoridation promoters,” North said. “So based on this, I changed my mind.” Using his knowledge and advocacy experience gained from working in the nonprofit sector, North said began working “pretty much full-time as a volunteer opposing fluoridation.” Today, North is a board member of the Fluoride Action Network, one of several groups that sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after the agency denied a petition to end water fluoridation under the Toxic Substances Control Act. On Sept. 24, a federal court decided the case, ruling that water fluoridation at current levels poses an “unreasonable risk” of reduced IQ in children and that the EPA must take regulatory action in response. North joined “The Defender In-Depth” this week to discuss the ruling and how it already has prompted some cities and counties across the U.S. to stop or pause the fluoridation of their water supply. Fluoridation ‘a hot potato within the federal government’ North said that for years, various organizations and individuals petitioned the EPA to stop water fluoridation. But despite basing their petitions on “a tremendous amount of animal and human studies,” the EPA rejected these calls. “This is a hot potato within the federal government,” North said. “Everybody knows how controversial this is. I mean, it’s basically a sacred cow.” According to North, “the next step was to file a lawsuit,” which several plaintiffs, including the Fluoride Action Network, Moms Against Fluoridation, Food & Water Watch and individual parents and children, filed in 2017. The lawsuit, however, was beset with delays — it took seven years for the court to finally issue last week’s ruling, which followed two sets of hearings: one in 2020 and one in February of this year. “In between, it has been just one delay after another, mainly put out by the EPA, which has been trying to delay this,” North said. As an example, North cited the publication of a key report by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), which concluded that fluoride is associated with reduced IQ in children at exposure levels at or above 1.5 milligrams per liter, and potentially at lower doses. According to North, the NTP report was ready for publication in May 2022. However, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services exerted pressure to block its release. “They knew it was full of pretty bombshell kinds of information,” North said. North said U.S. District Judge Edward Chen, who was “interested in learning about all the science,” refrained from issuing a ruling until the NTP report was released. “We could not have asked for a more fair, inquisitive judge,” North said. By August 2024 though, “enough was enough,” according to North, who said Chen agreed the wait for the release of the final NTP report was too long and that a ruling could be issued based on a draft of the report. Ultimately, the final report was released in August. North said the NTP report confirmed what anti-fluoride activists have been arguing for decades, “a consistent connection, consistent link between fluoride and lower IQ.” “If you are a pregnant woman, if you are the parent of an infant … this is where the damage to the brain is, this is where the science is showing it’s happening by women consuming fluoride, mainly through [water] fluoridation,” North said. “It gets into the fetus, and this is where brain damage can be happening — irreversible brain damage, loss of IQ. Then … if the baby is ingesting water mixed with infant formula … this is where significant damage also seems to be taking place,” North added. North said the NTP examined 72 studies for its report, with 64 of those questioning the practice of water fluoridation — including 18 of the 19 highest-rated studies. “It doesn’t get much stronger than this,” North said — and the judge agreed. “He finally decided … water fluoridation is an unreasonable risk to humans based on the lowering of IQ in children,” North said. ‘Nobody has to wait for the EPA’ In last week’s ruling, the federal court instructed the EPA to institute procedures and rules to eliminate water fluoridation’s health risks. “The ball is now in the EPA’s court,” North said. The agency has 30 days to file an appeal. If it does, the process could span one to two years. However, North said, “The important point is that nobody has to wait for the EPA.” “They’re not deciding whether a community fluoridates or not,” North said. “That doesn’t come down from the federal government for any community.” Some states mandate water fluoridation for towns with populations of 10,000 or more, but in other states, it’s up to local communities. “It’s their decision to fluoridate or not, so nobody has to wait for the EPA,” North said. After last week’s ruling, Abilene, Texas; Yorktown and Somers, New York; and the Weber Basin Water Conservancy District in Utah said they would pause or end water fluoridation. North said the U.S. is an “outlier,” as only 24 other countries fluoridate their water. “The U.S. fluoridates as many people as the rest of the world put together,” he said. North said commercial pressures to monetize fluoride, which he described as “a hazardous waste industrial byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer industry,” is one reason fluoridation is heavily promoted and practiced in the U.S. “You’ve got people whose salaries depend on promoting fluoridation,” North said. However, he added there is more than just a profit motive involved. “Mainly, the promotion comes from the federal government and the medical-dental establishment,” North said. As a result, professional reputations are at stake. “If it comes out that they are wrong, and boy is it ever coming out, their reputations are going to take a major hit.” Watch ‘The Defender In-Depth’ here: Read more at: ChildrensHealthDefense.org
Copy