Video Trial on Fluoridation Chemicals Set for June 8 in Federal Court
Fluoride Action Network
NEW YORK, April 20, 2020
/PRNewswire/ -- Twice-delayed, a lawsuit seeking to prohibit the
addition of fluoridation chemicals to public water systems in the U.S.
because of the threat fluoride poses to the developing brain will begin June 8, reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).
Under the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, the eight-day trial will be conducted by video conference, rather than in the courtroom, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
FAN is the lead plaintiff in the groundbreaking case, which challenges a practice endorsed by the U.S. Public Health Service 70 years ago and that today affects more than 200 million Americans through water systems in thousands of communities.
In accordance with U.S. law, the trial will be accessible to the public, although details remain to be worked out. Whatever the precise format, fluoridation, aggressively promoted by the American Dental Association and the government as a tooth decay preventative, will get a close look over eight days.
As plaintiff, FAN is joined by Moms Against Fluoridation and the consumer advocacy group Food and Water Watch. The groups are joined by several individuals representing themselves and/or their children.
Plaintiffs are represented by Michael Connett and C. Andrew Waters of Waters Kraus and Paul of El Segundo, California. The defendant is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), represented by the Environmental Defense Section of the U.S. Department of Justice.
"This case is groundbreaking for the opposition to fluoridation," said Paul Connett, FAN Executive Director. "Several well-conducted and government funded Mother-Offspring studies indicate that fluoride has the potential to lower the children's IQ. These studies have changed the ball-game on the argument over fluoride's neurotoxicity."
EPA plans to call on hired experts from the consulting firm Exponent Inc., known for servicing large corporations.
The lawsuit falls under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA) which gives EPA the authority to prohibit "the particular use" of a chemical substance if it presents an unreasonable risk to the general public or susceptible subpopulations.
The plaintiffs submitted a Citizens Petition under Section 21 of TSCA to the EPA in November 2016 requesting a ban on the addition of fluoridation chemicals to water. When the EPA denied their Petition, they filed suit in federal court.
A Fact Sheet providing further information on the case is at http://fluoridealert.org/tsca-fact-sheet/
SOURCE Fluoride Action Network
Apr 20, 2020, 15:06 ET
Under the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, the eight-day trial will be conducted by video conference, rather than in the courtroom, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
FAN is the lead plaintiff in the groundbreaking case, which challenges a practice endorsed by the U.S. Public Health Service 70 years ago and that today affects more than 200 million Americans through water systems in thousands of communities.
In accordance with U.S. law, the trial will be accessible to the public, although details remain to be worked out. Whatever the precise format, fluoridation, aggressively promoted by the American Dental Association and the government as a tooth decay preventative, will get a close look over eight days.
As plaintiff, FAN is joined by Moms Against Fluoridation and the consumer advocacy group Food and Water Watch. The groups are joined by several individuals representing themselves and/or their children.
Plaintiffs are represented by Michael Connett and C. Andrew Waters of Waters Kraus and Paul of El Segundo, California. The defendant is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), represented by the Environmental Defense Section of the U.S. Department of Justice.
"This case is groundbreaking for the opposition to fluoridation," said Paul Connett, FAN Executive Director. "Several well-conducted and government funded Mother-Offspring studies indicate that fluoride has the potential to lower the children's IQ. These studies have changed the ball-game on the argument over fluoride's neurotoxicity."
EPA plans to call on hired experts from the consulting firm Exponent Inc., known for servicing large corporations.
The lawsuit falls under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA) which gives EPA the authority to prohibit "the particular use" of a chemical substance if it presents an unreasonable risk to the general public or susceptible subpopulations.
The plaintiffs submitted a Citizens Petition under Section 21 of TSCA to the EPA in November 2016 requesting a ban on the addition of fluoridation chemicals to water. When the EPA denied their Petition, they filed suit in federal court.
A Fact Sheet providing further information on the case is at http://fluoridealert.org/tsca-fact-sheet/
SOURCE Fluoride Action Network
