Fluoride Lawsuit Timeline
THE TSCA LAW SUIT TIMELINE
The Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) authorizes EPA to prohibit the “particular
use” of a chemical that presents an unreasonable risk to the general
public or susceptible subpopulations. TSCA gives EPA the authority to
prohibit drinking water additives.
On November 22, 2016, a Citizens Petition
under Section 21 of TSCA was presented to the U.S. EPA requesting that
they exercise its authority to prohibit the purposeful addition of
fluoridation chemicals to U.S. water supplies. We made this request on
the grounds that a large body of animal, cellular, and human research
shows that fluoride is neurotoxic at doses within the range now seen in
fluoridated communities.
The Petition was submitted by the
Fluoride Action Network together with the Food & Water Watch,
American Academy of Environmental Medicine, International Academy of
Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Moms Against Fluoridation, Organic
Consumers Association, and others (see * The Petitioners below).
• See also the news articles relating to law suit
__________________________________________________
November 22, 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.__________________________________________________
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 focused on EPA’s 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.
December 14, 2017: The EPA requests court for “a protective order limiting review to the administrative record and an order striking Plaintiffs’ Jury Demand.”
January 5, 2018: FAN et al. submitted a brief in opposition to EPA’s motion to the court for a sweeping order that would exempt this “civil action” from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) and deny Plaintiffs their right to discovery.
January 5, 2018: The National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) submitted an Amicus Curiae Brief in opposition to EPA’s motion to limit petitioner’s right to discovery. They state, “To the contrary, the language, structure, and history of section 21 all support the district court’s consideration of new evidence.” The NRDC involvement supports neither party on the merits of the case.
January 15, 2018: The U.S. EPA’s Reply “in Further Support of Motion to Limit Review to Administrative Record.”
January 18, 2018: The Defendant, EPA, “Answer” to FAN et al’s “Complaint of Fluoride’s harm submitted April 18, 2017. EPA’s response to each (107) paragraph in FAN et al’s “Complaint” of April 18, 2017, concluding: “Except as expressly admitted or otherwise stated herein, EPA denies each and every allegation in Plaintiff’s Complaint.”
February 7, 2018: The Court ruled in our favour: Order Denying Defendant’s (EPA) Motion to Limit Review to the Administrative Record
October 24, 2018: The court orders more discovery in TSCA fluoride suit
August 2019: TSCA fluoride lawsuit trial dates, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco
_________________________________________________
* The Petitioners:
Fluoride Action NetworkFood & Water Watch
American Academy of Environmental Medicine
International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology
Moms Against Fluoridation
Organic Consumers Association
And others:
Audrey Adams, a resident of Renton, WA (individually and on behalf of her son),Jacqueline Denton, a resident of Asheville, NC (individually and on behalf of her children),
Valerie Green , a resident of Silver Spring, MD (individually and on behalf of her children),
Kristin Lavelle, a resident of Berkeley, CA (individually and on behalf of her son),
Brenda Staudenmaier from Green Bay, WI (individually and on behalf of her children)
Fluoride is a poison. Fluoride was poison yesterday. Fluoride is poison today. Fluoride will be poison tomorrow. The toxicity of fluoride was challenged in at least two other court cases and found to be toxic and deleterious to our health, yet nothing changed. Article VII of our Bill of Rights guarantees Common Law as a basis to settling legal disputes but somehow the Jury has been overridden by Corporate interests. What happened to our Common Law Courts? It would seem they went the way of County Government (think Worcester County). We the People may need to reclaim our status as American State Nationals and re-fire our Common Law Courts before any justice is found concerning being poisoned by these big Corporations. Time will tell. A great book for those interested is The Excellence of the Common Law by Brent Winters. The dialectic is Common Law vs Civil Law or " if man will not be ruled by god, he will be ruled by tyrants".
ReplyDelete