Court Decides Fluoridation Chemicals Pose Potential Threat to Health based on Unreasonable Risk Assessment
Federal Court Orders EPA to Regulate Fluoride Levels in Drinking Water
In a historic ruling, the United States District Court of the Northern District of California has ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate fluoride levels in drinking water due to the unreasonable risk it poses to human health, particularly to pregnant women and young children.
The court's decision, made in September 2024, is based on a preponderance of scientific evidence, including a draft National Toxicology Program (NTP) report and recent cohort studies showing fluoride’s neurotoxicity effects. The ruling marks a significant legal recognition of fluoride’s potential harms at current drinking water limits.
The court found that fluoridation, specifically at a concentration of 0.7 milligrams per liter (mg/L), poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children. Consequently, the EPA is now barred from ignoring the risk posed by fluoridation.
This ruling follows seven years of legal action against the EPA over the risk posed to the developing brain by the practice of water fluoridation. Notable contributors to this legal battle include the Fluoride Action Network and Attorney Michael Connett, who played a significant role in pursuing this case and leading the effort every step of the way.
In response to the ruling, the EPA filed an appeal in July 2025, with the appeal set to be heard by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. The appeal challenges the district judge’s authority and findings, with industry groups like the American Chemistry Council and the American Fluoridation Society supporting the EPA’s appeal.
If the 9th Circuit Court upholds the district court’s ruling, the EPA will be compelled to initiate new rulemaking to lower fluoride levels in public drinking water supplies. This could lead to major changes in U.S. water fluoridation policies to reduce neurotoxic risks.
The case has triggered widespread debate and resistance, with environmental, public health, and chemical industry stakeholders deeply involved. Some states, such as Florida, have already taken legislative steps to ban fluoridation independently of the EPA.
For more information about the court ruling, please refer to the official court document. This case is a critical turning point in environmental health regulation concerning fluoride and could significantly influence U.S. water fluoridation standards and practices in the near future.
- This significant court ruling in the United States District Court of the Northern District of California highlights the need for policy-and-legislation changes related to health-and-wellness, specifically regarding fluoride levels in drinking water.
- The court's decision, based primarily on scientific evidence, appreciates the potential harmful effects of fluoride on mental-health, particularly on the developing brain, and contrasts this with the current drinking water limits.
- In the general-news realm, the case against the EPA on fluoride regulation has drawn extensive coverage, involving debates and responses from various stakeholders, such as the Fluoride Action Network, attorney Michael Connett, and environmental groups, as well as the American Chemistry Council and the American Fluoridation Society.
- The environmental-science community closely follows the developments in this case, as it could have profound implications for water quality and public health policies.
- As the 9th Circuit Court considers the EPA's appeal, the articles discussing the relevance of this fluoride regulation case continue to pour in, demonstrating a widespread concern and interest in the truth about the safety of fluoride in drinking water.
