EPA Ordered to Address Fluoride’s Impact on Children’s IQ \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ A federal judge has ordered the EPA to further regulate fluoride in drinking water, citing potential risks to children’s brain development. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen pointed to research suggesting an “unreasonable risk” but did not prescribe specific measures. This historic ruling challenges decades of fluoride use, which has been considered a public health success.
EPA Ordered to Regulate Fluoride Levels Quick Looks:
- A federal judge has ordered the EPA to regulate fluoride levels in drinking water due to potential neurodevelopmental risks for children.
- U.S. District Judge Edward Chen acknowledged the uncertainty around current fluoride levels but said research indicates a risk to children’s intellectual development.
- The ruling marks the first federal judicial decision addressing the neurodevelopmental impacts of water fluoridation.
- Studies have linked higher fluoride exposure to lower IQ in children, especially at levels above the recommended fluoride limit.
- Fluoride has long been hailed for its benefits in preventing tooth decay, but concerns about its impact on brain development are growing.
- The National Toxicology Program recently found a “moderate” link between fluoride exposure and IQ reduction in kids.
- The EPA had argued that lower levels of fluoride exposure might not pose the same risks, but the judge ruled that more regulation is necessary to ensure safety.
- Nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population consumes fluoridated water, with federal recommendations setting levels at 0.7 milligrams per liter.
- The EPA’s existing fluoride limit of 4 milligrams per liter is aimed at preventing skeletal fluorosis, a bone disorder caused by excessive fluoride exposure.
- The court case, initiated in 2017 by Food & Water Watch, paused in 2020 for further research and resumed earlier this year.
Deep Look:
In a landmark ruling, a federal judge has ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reassess and regulate fluoride levels in drinking water, citing emerging concerns over the potential risk to children’s intellectual development. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen, who issued the ruling, acknowledged the uncertainty about whether the typical amount of fluoride added to U.S. water supplies definitively lowers children’s IQs, but he pointed to growing research that suggests there may be an “unreasonable risk.”
Chen’s decision follows years of debate about the safety of water fluoridation, a practice that has been hailed as a major public health achievement for reducing tooth decay. Fluoride is widely used to strengthen teeth by replacing minerals that are lost during normal wear and tear. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) considers water fluoridation one of the most significant public health successes of the last century.
However, growing concerns have emerged about fluoride’s potential to affect neurodevelopment in children. Last month, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) reported “moderate confidence” in a link between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower IQ in children, particularly when fluoride levels in water are around twice the recommended limit. This finding has intensified scrutiny of fluoride’s impact on brain development, especially in fetuses and young children who consume fluoridated water mixed with baby formula.
In his 80-page ruling, Judge Chen emphasized that while the EPA has historically defended water fluoridation, the agency must ensure there is a safety margin between the hazard level and the exposure level of any chemical. “If there is an insufficient margin, then the chemical poses a risk,” Chen wrote. He ordered the EPA to take action to lower that risk but stopped short of specifying how the agency should regulate fluoride going forward.
This ruling is notable as the first time a federal court has weighed in on the potential neurodevelopmental risks of fluoride in drinking water. Ashley Malin, a University of Florida researcher who studies fluoride’s effects, called it “the most historic ruling in the U.S. fluoridation debate that we’ve ever seen.” The judge’s decision casts doubt on a practice that has been long celebrated, though it stops short of declaring fluoride outright dangerous at current levels.
Fluoride’s benefits in preventing cavities have been well-established since 1950, when federal officials endorsed adding it to water supplies to help prevent tooth decay. This was seen as a major victory for public health, even after fluoride toothpaste became widely available. Today, nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population drinks fluoridated water, according to the CDC.
In 2015, federal health officials lowered the recommended fluoridation level to 0.7 milligrams per liter of water, down from the previous upper limit of 1.2 milligrams, which had been in place for five decades. The World Health Organization has set a slightly higher safe limit for fluoride in drinking water at 1.5 milligrams per liter. The EPA also has its own longstanding regulation that prohibits water systems from having more than 4 milligrams of fluoride per liter, a threshold designed to prevent skeletal fluorosis, a painful and potentially crippling condition that weakens bones.
However, newer studies have focused on the impact of fluoride on the brain, particularly in children. Research conducted over the last two decades has raised concerns about fluoride’s potential effects on neurochemistry and cognitive development. Some studies have shown that exposure to high levels of fluoride during pregnancy or early childhood may impact learning, memory, executive function, and behavior.
The legal battle over water fluoridation began in 2017 when the environmental advocacy group Food & Water Watch, among other plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit against the EPA. The case was put on hold in 2020 as the court awaited findings from the NTP’s review of fluoride’s effects. After the report was released, arguments resumed earlier this year, leading to Judge Chen’s ruling.
Michael Connett, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, praised the decision, stating in an email that the only way to truly eliminate the risks associated with adding fluoride to water would be to stop the practice altogether. “In our view, the only effective way to eliminate the risk from adding fluoride chemicals to water is to stop adding them,” Connett said.
The EPA, a defendant in the case, had argued that there is no conclusive evidence that the amount of fluoride typically added to water has a measurable impact on IQ. However, the agency is required to ensure that the margin of safety between hazard and exposure is adequate, and Chen ruled that current exposure levels are high enough to warrant further action.
An EPA spokesperson, Jeff Landis, said the agency is reviewing the judge’s decision but did not provide further details on how it plans to proceed.
Fluoride exposure in the U.S. mainly comes from drinking water, though it can also come from other sources such as toothpaste and certain foods. For many Americans, fluoridated water remains the primary source. The practice of adding fluoride to water, once widely accepted as beneficial, is now being reevaluated as scientists continue to investigate its potential impact on the brain and intellectual development.
With this ruling, the future of water fluoridation in the U.S. is likely to remain a subject of intense debate, as the EPA now faces pressure to tighten regulations while balancing the public health benefits of fluoride for dental care with the emerging concerns about neurodevelopment.
