Yesterday afternoon, we received this exciting message from FAN’s Legal Advisor, Michael Connett, JD:
“Judge just handed down his ruling —
he has denied EPA’s motion to dismiss!”
A federal judge has ruled in our favor to allow FAN’s lawsuit against the EPA to move forward. This ruling was picked up by a prominent law website, which in turn has been picked up by Reuters. So the news is out:he has denied EPA’s motion to dismiss!”
WE ARE WINNING. The next phase will be discovery.
Above: a video interview with attorney Michael Connett about the lawsuit and yesterday’s decision. FAN will provide a full analysis from Michael early next week.
Timeline of Lawsuit Against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):
Below is a complete timeline of events leading up to yesterdays big win.November 23, 2016: Fluoride Action Network (FAN), together with a coalition of environmental, medical and health groups, collectively known as the “Petitioners” (see *below), served the EPA with a Petition calling on the Agency to ban the addition of fluoridation chemicals to public water supplies due to the risks these chemicals pose to the brain. The Petition was submitted under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) because it authorizes EPA to prohibit the “particular use” of a chemical that presents an unreasonable risk to the general public or susceptible subpopulations.
TSCA also gives EPA the authority to prohibit drinking water additives.
February 27, 2017: EPA denied the TSCA Section 21 Petition. Read their reasons here. In their decision the EPA claimed, “The petition has not set forth a scientifically defensible basis to conclude that any persons have suffered neurotoxic harm as a result of exposure to fluoride in the U.S. through the purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to drinking water or otherwise from fluoride exposure in the U.S.”
April 18, 2017: FAN et al.’s response to EPA’s rejection of Petition.
September 25, 2017: Motion to Dismiss FAN et al. Petition by the Department of Justice, on behalf of the EPA.
October 25, 2017: FAN et al. response to EPA’s rejection of Petition.
October 25, 2017: Amicus Curiae Brief of the Natural Resources Defense Council and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families in Support of Neither Party. Their brief against EPA’s basis to dismiss our section 21 Petition that FAN et al. focused on the unacceptable demand: “must evaluate all of a chemical’s conditions of use”
November 30, 2017: Hearing with arguments from both parties. Michael Connett, JD, put forward the arguments of why EPA’s Motion to Dismiss should be denied.
December 21, 2017: Court rules in our favor and denies EPA’s Motion to Dismiss.
Thank you,
Stuart Cooper
Campaign Director
Fluoride Action Network
There is big money in fluoride. It is in a tooth paste, mouth wash, dentists give fluoride treatments ! To rid the all of these products of this poison will be costly for the companies, but it should be done. To add it to the water people drink should be against the law. The town or city that does this is medicating the public without it's approval. I am willing to bet a majority of water users in town do not even know that fluoride is in the water. Bev.
ReplyDeleteFluoride is a poison. Fluoride was poison yesterday. Fluoride is poison today. Fluoride will be poison tomorrow. Good points Bev, its all about the money. It would appear at first glance that EPA is there to protect the sheep from environmental problems but closer scrutiny shows that EPA at the politics level is there to protect big business. My research has shown it is not a revolving door between big corporations and government but the same house. Big Business is our Government. If time permits take the time to read the original complaint by the Plaintiffs it was what I was reading from at last years Annual Town Meeting. The complaint filed by Michael Connett is a very succinct document that leaves little to the imagination when it comes to the health problems associated with water fluoridation. FluorideTSCA When in doubt get it out.
ReplyDeleteAlthough you may be interested in reading of the EPA's denial to dismiss in the above link the original case is here. OriginalCase
ReplyDelete