Title : Fluoridated Water Case Goes to Federal Court
link : Fluoridated Water Case Goes to Federal Court
Fluoridated Water Case Goes to Federal Court
Press Release January 9, 2020: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Fluoridated Water Case Goes to Federal Court
A federal judge has rejected the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s request for a summary judgement to end a lawsuit over the neurotoxicity of industrial fluoride chemicals. The case will be going forward to an eight-day federal court hearing beginning April 20, 2020 in Berkeley, California.
The lawsuit against the EPA is pursuant to section 21 of the 1976 Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. § 2620. According to plaintiffs, this case is the first in the history of TSCA where citizens have successfully brought a suit to court under provisions in the law.
The Food & Water Watch and several other national organizations petitioned the EPA in 2016 to fulfill its responsibilities under TSCA regulations which per modern scientific findings should result in a ban on fluoridation policy.
The EPA rejected the petition which led to the group filing a federal lawsuit in early 2017. Gloucester resident Karen Spencer is one of those listed as a member of the Food & Water Watch who testified to adverse health impacts due to fluoridated city water in that filing.
The original 2016 petition included over 180 studies demonstrating fluoride's neurotoxicity. Since 2017, many additional high-quality studies have documented harm from fluoride consumption. A series of U.S. government sponsored studies on the impact of low dose exposure to fluoride in North American populations have found that every 1 mg/L increase in prenatal exposure results in higher incidence of learning disabilities and a lowered IQ of approximately 5 points (Green et al 2019, Riddell et al 2019, Bashash et al 2017, Valdez Jiménez et al 2017). Babies fed formula prepared with fluoridated water in Canadian communities also suffer a significant loss in cognitive function (Till et al 2019).
According to Dr. David Bellinger, senior scientist in environmental health and neurology at the Harvard School of Public Health, and to the editors of JAMA Pediatrics, the neurological impact of fluoride in drinking water is comparable to the impact of lead tainted water.
The promoted safety of fluoride has been contested for over 70 years. However, the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) draft review on fluoride’s neurotoxicity released in October 2019 concluded, “fluoride is presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard to humans.”
Based on these studies and reports, many pediatricians warn patients to avoid fluoridated water during pregnancy in order to protect against lowered IQ and increased risk of learning disabilities in their children. According to Spencer, fluoridation policy harms consumers “womb to tomb” in order to protect the “power, prestige and paychecks” of a number of stakeholders.
Both the Gloucester and Rockport Conservation Commissions went on record in 2019 opposing fluoridation policy as environmentally unsound, as did the Gloucester Shellfish Advisory Commission. However, local administrations have deferred to their local Boards of Health who are compelled to promote fluoridation under the existing Massachusetts law.
Senator Bruce Tarr, minority leader in the Massachusetts Senate, sponsored a bill to establish a task force to examine the economic impact of fluoridation policy on consumers. That 2019 bill is still pending action (S2196).
Karen Favazza Spencer Gloucester, MA 978.283.4606
Court Docket: https://ift.tt/36Emr59 Food__Water_Watch_Inc_et_al_v_Environmental_Protection_Agency_et_
Fluoridated Water Case Goes to Federal Court
A federal judge has rejected the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s request for a summary judgement to end a lawsuit over the neurotoxicity of industrial fluoride chemicals. The case will be going forward to an eight-day federal court hearing beginning April 20, 2020 in Berkeley, California.
The lawsuit against the EPA is pursuant to section 21 of the 1976 Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. § 2620. According to plaintiffs, this case is the first in the history of TSCA where citizens have successfully brought a suit to court under provisions in the law.
The Food & Water Watch and several other national organizations petitioned the EPA in 2016 to fulfill its responsibilities under TSCA regulations which per modern scientific findings should result in a ban on fluoridation policy.
The EPA rejected the petition which led to the group filing a federal lawsuit in early 2017. Gloucester resident Karen Spencer is one of those listed as a member of the Food & Water Watch who testified to adverse health impacts due to fluoridated city water in that filing.
The original 2016 petition included over 180 studies demonstrating fluoride's neurotoxicity. Since 2017, many additional high-quality studies have documented harm from fluoride consumption. A series of U.S. government sponsored studies on the impact of low dose exposure to fluoride in North American populations have found that every 1 mg/L increase in prenatal exposure results in higher incidence of learning disabilities and a lowered IQ of approximately 5 points (Green et al 2019, Riddell et al 2019, Bashash et al 2017, Valdez Jiménez et al 2017). Babies fed formula prepared with fluoridated water in Canadian communities also suffer a significant loss in cognitive function (Till et al 2019).
According to Dr. David Bellinger, senior scientist in environmental health and neurology at the Harvard School of Public Health, and to the editors of JAMA Pediatrics, the neurological impact of fluoride in drinking water is comparable to the impact of lead tainted water.
The promoted safety of fluoride has been contested for over 70 years. However, the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) draft review on fluoride’s neurotoxicity released in October 2019 concluded, “fluoride is presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard to humans.”
Based on these studies and reports, many pediatricians warn patients to avoid fluoridated water during pregnancy in order to protect against lowered IQ and increased risk of learning disabilities in their children. According to Spencer, fluoridation policy harms consumers “womb to tomb” in order to protect the “power, prestige and paychecks” of a number of stakeholders.
Both the Gloucester and Rockport Conservation Commissions went on record in 2019 opposing fluoridation policy as environmentally unsound, as did the Gloucester Shellfish Advisory Commission. However, local administrations have deferred to their local Boards of Health who are compelled to promote fluoridation under the existing Massachusetts law.
Senator Bruce Tarr, minority leader in the Massachusetts Senate, sponsored a bill to establish a task force to examine the economic impact of fluoridation policy on consumers. That 2019 bill is still pending action (S2196).
Karen Favazza Spencer Gloucester, MA 978.283.4606
Court Docket: https://ift.tt/36Emr59 Food__Water_Watch_Inc_et_al_v_Environmental_Protection_Agency_et_
Thus Article Fluoridated Water Case Goes to Federal Court
That's an article Fluoridated Water Case Goes to Federal Court This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article Fluoridated Water Case Goes to Federal Court with the link address https://polennews.blogspot.com/2020/01/fluoridated-water-case-goes-to-federal.html
0 Response to "Fluoridated Water Case Goes to Federal Court"
Post a Comment