California Judge Rules That Fluoride in Water Decreases Children’s IQ

EPA is now required to review acceptable levels of fluoride in drinking water, due to concerns about neurological side effects for children.

After federal regulators rejected a request to review the safe levels of fluoride in U.S. drinking water, a California judge has ordered the government to take action, due to concerns that side effects of fluoride could lower children’s IQ.

The decision (PDF) came in response to a lawsuit filed against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by Food & Water Watch Inc., Fluoride Action Network and Moms Against Fluoridation, after the EPA refused to act on a petition filed by the groups, which challenged the agency’s decision to allow fluoride levels in U.S. drinking water to remain the same.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in accordance with the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which was amended in 2016, allowing citizens to petition the EPA to investigate substances they believe pose an “unreasonable risk” to human health.

According to TSCA, individuals and organizations can also request a judicial review of any EPA denial of their petition. The court can then independently assess if the substance in question is dangerous, even if the EPA previously deemed it safe.

Acceptable Levels of Fluoride Could Present Danger to Children

Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral that has been added to drinking water, foods and dental products worldwide for decades, due to its ability to help prevent tooth decay and strengthen bones.

However, in 2006, the National Research Council determined that fluoride can also interfere with human body and brain functions, especially in children, potentially lowering their IQ.

Following these findings, U.S. recommended levels of fluoride were lowered, with the acceptable amount in tap water set at 0.7 mg/L in 2015. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) applied the same maximum level of fluoride to bottled water in 2022, to mitigate health risks, while continuing to provide dental benefits.

Since that time, an increasing amount of scientific evidence has been presented linking fluoride to adverse neurological conditions, including exposure during pregnancy increasing risks of autism and ADHD in unborn children.

As a result, Food & Water Watch Inc., Fluoride Action Network and Moms Against Fluoridation filed a petition with the EPA in November 2016, asking the agency to reconsider acceptable levels of fluoride in drinking water.

However, the EPA subsequently denied the petition on February 17, 2017, maintaining that the negative findings in the research presented concerning fluoride had an insufficient basis in science.

In accordance with the TSCA, the organizations then chose to file a complaint in federal court, asking the court to force the EPA to take some form of regulatory action against the dangers presented by fluoride in drinking water.

EPA Must Reconsider Acceptable Fluoride Levels in Drinking Water

On September 24, Judge Edward M. Chen issued a Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, ruling that there is ample scientific evidence that fluoride presents a risk of unreasonable injury to humans.

The court determined that water fluoridation at the standard level of 0.7 mg/L presents an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children, and that the EPA itself agrees that some level of exposure to fluoride is dangerous.

“There is little dispute in this suit as to whether fluoride poses a hazard to human health. Indeed, EPA’s own expert agrees that fluoride is hazardous at some level of exposure. And ample evidence establishes that a mother’s exposure to fluoride during pregnancy is associated with IQ decrements (reductions) in her offspring,” said Judge Chen in the recent decision.

Judge Chen also stated that under the TSCA, the substance being decided upon does not have to be found hazardous at the minimum level of exposure for the EPA to be required to reconsider acceptable levels, only that there is uncertainty as to what level of exposure is harmful.

In addition, after a judicial finding of an unreasonable risk, the EPA is legally compelled to respond appropriately.

While the court did not specify what the final rule must entail, Judge Chen has issued a binding order that requires the EPA to take regulatory action to address the risk posed by fluoride in drinking water, which could include revising permissible fluoride levels, among other potential regulatory responses, so as to mitigate the risk to human health, particularly to children.