Video Trial on Fluoridation Chemicals
Set for June 8 in Federal Court
Set for June 8 in Federal Court
Twice-delayed,
a lawsuit seeking to prohibit the
addition of fluoridation chemicals to public water systems in the U.S.
because of the threat fluoride poses to the developing brain will
begin June 8, reports the Fluoride
Action Network (FAN).
Under
the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court
in San Francisco, the eight-day trial will be conducted by video
conference, rather than in the courtroom, as a result of the COVID-19
pandemic.
FAN
is the lead plaintiff in the groundbreaking case,
which challenges a practice endorsed by the
U.S. Public Health Service
70 years ago and that today affects more than 200 million Americans
through water systems in thousands of communities.
In
accordance with U.S. law, the trial will be accessible
to the public, although details remain to be worked out. Whatever the
precise format, fluoridation, aggressively promoted by the American
Dental Association and the government as a tooth decay preventative,
will get a close look over eight days.
As
plaintiff, FAN is joined by Moms Against Fluoridation
and the consumer advocacy group Food and Water Watch. The groups are
joined by several individuals representing themselves and/or their
children.
Plaintiffs
are represented by Michael Connett and
C. Andrew Waters of Waters Kraus and Paul of El Segundo, California.
The defendant is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
represented by the Environmental Defense Section of the U.S. Department
of Justice.
"This case is groundbreaking for the opposition to
fluoridation," said Paul Connett, FAN Executive Director. "Several well-conducted and government funded Mother-Offspring
studies indicate that fluoride has the potential to lower
the children's IQ. These studies have changed the ball-game on the
argument over fluoride's neurotoxicity."
EPA plans to call on hired experts from the consulting
firm Exponent Inc., known for servicing large corporations.
The
lawsuit falls under the Toxic Substances Control
Act of 1976 (TSCA), which gives EPA the authority to prohibit "the
particular use" of a chemical substance if it presents an unreasonable
risk to the general public or susceptible subpopulations.
The
plaintiffs submitted a Citizens Petition under
Section 21 of TSCA to the EPA in November 2016requesting a ban on the
addition of fluoridation chemicals to water. When the EPA denied their
Petition, they filed suit in federal court.
A Fact Sheet providing further information on the
case is at: http://fluoridealert.org/tsca-fact-sheet/
No comments:
Post a Comment