FIn recent decades, opponents of drinking water fluoridation have often been portrayed as fringe groups and conspiracy theorists, but a federal ruling in the United States could end the practice and bring public and policy makers to a halt. This could be a crucial point in a campaign to convince people of the dangers of this substance. For the developing brain of young children.
Armed with a growing body of scientific evidence showing fluoride’s neurotoxicity, public health advocates say the legal victory is due to “institutional inertia” and the possibility that federal public health agencies were wrong. He claims that this shows that he is overcoming his reluctance to admit that he is.
Stuart Cooper, director of the advocacy group Fluoridation Action Network, said last week’s order requiring the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to begin the process of tightening fluoride regulations was a “milestone” that had been years in the making. It represents a major legal victory.
“After years of them ignoring us and defending fluoridation, we now have the opportunity to receive a fair and balanced verdict in court,” Cooper said.
U.S. Judge Edward Chen, appointed by President Obama, ruled that the levels of fluoridation the general public receives in drinking water can cause developmental problems and lower IQ in children. Although the decision does not say what level of fluoridation causes brain damage, the court found that the levels in U.S. water pose an unreasonable risk.
The EPA must now perform a risk assessment, one of the first steps in setting new limits under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Water in the United States has been fluoridated since 1945, but recommended levels have since been lowered due to health risks. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost through normal wear and tear, and dental organizations say fluoride protects young children’s gums and developing teeth. He claims to do so.
Fluoride is added to the drinking water of more than 200 million Americans, approximately 75% of the population, at the recommended level of 0.7 milligrams per liter of water.
Although those opposed to fluoridation can present credible evidence to support their claims, the history of anti-fluoridation suggests that the process was a communist conspiracy after World War II, or Conspiracy theories have been included that it was an organized effort to drain the information power of American society.
But evidence of the risks has always been there, and such practices are rare in most other countries, including Europe. Michael Connett, lead attorney for the food and water watchdog group in the case, said there had been an “increase” of high-quality scientific research documenting the risks over the past 15 years.
The EPA was a “good soldier” and followed federal policy, but that required it to ignore evidence and waive its statutory obligations, Connett said.
“There are agencies that have been aggressively promoting fluoridation in a very unnuanced, sledgehammer way for decades, so they’re saying, ‘Oh, you might actually be damaging your brain. ‘That’s a significant deviation from the party line,’ Connett said. . “There are issues of organizational reliability and inertia.”
Still, many fluoridation supporters have not backed down after the ruling. Many medical institutions support this process. The American Dental Association, which supports fluoridation, said in a statement last week: “The key takeaway for the public and the public health community from this ruling is that it concludes with confidence that fluoridated water is harmful to public health. That means no,” he said. ”
Cooper pointed to statements made during the trial by American Academy of Pediatrics officials who said they would not oppose the Florida dose even if it resulted in a five-point IQ point drop for up to 10% of the population.
Cooper said that while battles over fluoridation over the past few decades have been waged between medical institutions and regulators, the general public generally agrees that the practice should end. Ta.
“The majority of the public was always on our side. There was never a single citizen who said, ‘Yes, we want fluoridated water,'” Cooper said.
The change comes as scientists like Linda Birnbaum, former head of the EPA’s Toxic Chemicals Program, support eliminating fluoridation and that some government agencies have found unreasonable risks in the past few years. partially gained momentum.
“When will we have enough information to revise long-held beliefs? We recall the discovery of lead neurotoxicity that led to the successful banning of lead in gasoline and paint.” Birnbaum he said in a 2020 editorial.
As a result of the ruling, four water systems, including the system that supplies water to Salt Lake City, stopped or suspended fluoridation.
Despite the win, Connett said he doesn’t expect support for fluoridation to disappear anytime soon.
“There is a scientific paradigm and a deep belief that fluoridation is safe and effective, and that will not disappear overnight,” he added.
