The historic trial examining the dangers of water fluoridation reached a temporary conclusion on Wednesday after the judge delayed the ruling so the parties may consider new evidence on fluoride.
(To read about week 1 of the trial, please see this)
On Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Edward Chen delayed a ruling in the case between the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The FAN is aiming to prove the harms caused by community water fluoridation. The government is defending water fluoridation and seeking a dismissal of the petition by the plaintiffs.
Over the last two weeks, Judge Chen has heard arguments from witnesses with the FAN and EPA. Attorneys with FAN argue that water fluoridation violates the 1970 Toxic Substances Control Act provisions which prohibit the “particular use” of a chemical which has been found to present an unreasonable risk to the general public. Under section 21 of the TSCA citizens are allowed to petition the EPA to regulate or ban individual chemicals.
Judge Chen suggested the FAN file a new petition with the EPA, a suggestion which plaintiffs attorney Michael Connett was not eager to accept given the fact that it has taken four years to get the lawsuit to court. Connett told the court that the plaintiffs might not have the resources to continue this fight for another couple of years and cautioned against delaying a ruling because it would continue to endanger Americans due to ongoing fluoride exposure. The EPA’s attorneys were equally disinterested in a delayed ruling, stating that there is “no way” the EPA could conduct a review within the required 90 days.
Judge Chen said he was only discussing delaying the ruling for another couple of months, not years. Chen also noted that the evidence presented by both sides went “well beyond administrative record, because so much has changed since that petition was filed” in 2016. “Doesn’t it make sense to have the agency take a second look?” Judge Chen asked the attorneys for the EPA and FAN.
Judge Chen noted that the National Academy of Science is expected to publish a study later this year and the National Toxicology Program is working on a review of the literature on fluoride. These new studies, he said, should be considered by the EPA. The judge did acknowledge it is undisputed that fluoride can cause harm to the human brain and is a neurological hazard. The disagreement between EPA and FAN hinges on arguments over the levels at which fluoride causes neurological damage.
#FluorideTrial FAN Connett says it is undisputed that fluoride passes through the placenta and into the fetal brain, due to the absence of a fully developed blood-brain barrier
— Derrick Broze (@DBrozeLiveFree) June 17, 2020
Ultimately, Judge Chen, the EPA, and the FAN agreed to delay a ruling until both parties have time to discuss whether the EPA will revisit the original petition, FAN will file a new petition, or the judge will rule on the current case. A briefing between both sides is scheduled for August 6.
During the discussions about the potential ruling, Judge Chen admitted that the EPA held the FAN petition on water fluoridation to a standard which is not typical of petitions under TSCA. “The EPA appears to have applied a standard of causation, which from my read of TSCA is not accurate, is not a proper application, not the proper standard,” Chen said to the EPA. This fact was acknowledged by FAN attorney Michael Connett on Tuesday during cross examination of EPA witness Dr. Tala Henry. Under standard TSCA procedure, parties must show an association — not causation — to prove the harm of water fluoridation.
#FluorideTrial FAN Connett asks EPA witness Dr. Henry if its true that the EPA held the plaintiffs to a burden of proof that the EPA has not held single chemical before? Henry, I guess thats true. The EPA has apparently never before held a chemical to a standard of causation
— Derrick Broze (@DBrozeLiveFree) June 16, 2020
Connett also spent much of his cross examination of EPA expert witnesses drawing attention to their previous testimony in defense of chemical companies and chemicals known to be hazardous to humans. Two of the EPA’s witnesses are employed by the corporate firm Exponent Inc. While cross examining EPA witness Dr. Ellen Chang, Connett asked how much biotech/pesticide company Syngenta paid her for a presentation she had given.
#FluorideTrial FAN Connett asks witness Dr. Chang if she was paid by pesticide company Syngenta to give a presentation, Chang says it is correct that she was retained by Syngenta to testify at an EPA committee
— Derrick Broze (@DBrozeLiveFree) June 15, 2020
Connett also questioned Dr. Chang about how much she was being paid to defend water fluoridation. Chang stated that Exponent Inc was paying her an estimated $149,000. Dr. Chang was also questioned by Connett about her previous work for Monsanto, Dow Chemical, and other chemical companies and associations. Specifically, Connett called attention to the fact that Dr. Chang had previously stated that despite an association between Monsanto/Bayer’s glyphosate and cancer, she concluded there was no risk. Chang admitted that one peer-reviewer of her study on glyphosate found her analysis “devolved into a laundry list of every possible cause of bias.”
#FluorideTrial FAN Connett asks Dr. Chang how much she billed Exponent Inc for her work. Chang gives a long winded answer, eventually says $149,000
— Derrick Broze (@DBrozeLiveFree) June 15, 2020
#FluorideTrial FAN Connett asks EPA witness Dr. Chang about her systematic review of agent orange/dioxin, funded by Monsanto. Connett asks Chang if her reviews found that there was insufficient evidence for harm, Chang carefully answers, says the conclusions were more nuanced
— Derrick Broze (@DBrozeLiveFree) June 15, 2020
#FluorideTrial FAN Connett confirms with witness Chang about the funders of her reviews of chemical hazards in humans while employed by Exponent Inc – Monsanto, Dow Chemical, CropLife, Syngenta, American Chemistry Council, American Petro Institute, Manganese Interest Group
— Derrick Broze (@DBrozeLiveFree) June 15, 2020
Despite arguments from the EPA’s attorneys that the EPA would never fail to act to protect Americans from harm, the fact remains that the U.S. government hired corporate scientists to defend water fluoridation. The EPA attempted to diminish the concerns brought by the plaintiffs and their experts, while simultaneously attempting to present last-minute evidence which had not been peer-reviewed. If the EPA wants to protect the American people they should accept the plaintiffs petition and end water fluoridation. If they refuse to do so, Judge Chen should see clearly that fluoride is a neurotoxin which poses an unreasonable risk to human health.
Stay tuned to The Last American Vagabond for updates on this ongoing case.
Captured government agencies and corporate controlled scientists making a mockery of science. Such is life today.
Heck, real scientists were all opposed to Fluoride in the 1950’s recognizing the dangers. They still got it into the water.
Makes you wonder about Tobacco. What happened there. How did real science win out, or did it?
In any case maybe Nuremberg II trials for crimes against humanity for public health and safety agencies and corporations are in order. Do we have enough rope ?
No Body rides 4 free. Fix the issue Yesterday.The National Institute Of Health and the State Department have alot of explaining. Senior Upper level management, PhD, professors,all top individuals, You gonna have a huge truck filled with Superior Court Subpoena’s
Putting the case on hold pending reconsideration and re-petitioning for “new” evidence is a never-ending recipe for cycles of kicking the case into the long grass until the funds run out. Shameful legal cheating!
Both parties agreed that the best evidence in the case found on average a significant loss of IQ for offspring when the mothers regularly drank fluoridated tap water during pregnancy. It was made clear that pregnant women should not drink fluoridated water and parents should not prepare formula for infants with fluoridated water. Most people in the U.S. get fluoridated tap water in their homes. Therefore, you should assume that your tap water is fluoridated unless you find out otherwise.