US court rules that fluoride added to water supplies poses a risk of reducing children’s IQ

In 2016, the Blackpool Council approved a fluoridated school milk plan. All Blackpool primary school children in Years one to six are now able to have fluoridated milk as part of the school breakfast scheme.

Under this scheme, each participating child receives milk that contains 4.2 ppm of fluoride every school day. This is in addition to the fluoride added to water supplies that fall below 1 ppm.

In the US, the safe limit in water was deemed to be 0.7 ppm – until a court ruled last week that 0.7 ppm poses an unreasonable risk of reducing IQ in children.

It's free – no cost to parents," the Blackpool Council states promoting its fluoridated milk for school children. Adding, "It's safe to drink."

It re-emphasises that it's safe to drink in bold type in the very next sentence:

In 2016, when Blackpool Council first approved the plan, the BBC noted : "Under the fluoridated milk scheme, each 189ml carton will contain 0.8mg of fluoride – the equivalent of 4.2 parts per million."

Regarding the upper tolerable intake limit, the World Health Organisation estimates it is calculated as 0.1 mg/kg body weight per day. This upper limit relates to fluoride from all sources, including toothpaste.

In a 2010 European Union Science Committee document , the estimated upper tolerable intake limit for children aged between 8 and 14 years is 5 mg/day, extrapolated from the estimated upper limit for adults. The upper tolerable intake limit for children aged between 4 and 8 years is estimated at 2.5 mg/day. As noted by Fluoride Action Network , for children younger than 4, between 60% and 104% of their recommended daily limit of fluoride (0.7 mg) is obtained from toothpaste alone while brushing their teeth twice daily. The upper tolerable intake limit for 2 and 3-year-olds is 1.3 mg daily – they get 0.7 mg from toothpaste and then you add the fluoride intake from its many sources including water and milk.

As the European Union Science Committee document demonstrates, it is complex and impossible to calculate anyone's total daily fluoride intake with any accuracy.

Each child participating in the scheme receives a carton of 189ml of fluoridated milk. Therefore, each participating child is given milk containing 4.2 parts per million ("ppm") of fluoride every school day.

A 2022 policy paper for the UK government stated, "In some parts of England the level of fluoride in the public water supply already reaches the target concentration of water fluoridation schemes (one milligram per litre (1mg/l)), sometimes expressed as one part per million (1ppm)), as a result of the geology of the area. In other areas the fluoride concentration has been adjusted to reach this level as part of a fluoridation scheme."

The policy paper continued, "The World Health Organisation recommends a maximum level of 1.5 milligrams of fluoride per litre of water (mg/l) [or 1.5 ppm]."

In addition to the 1 ppm of fluoride in drinking water, the Blackpool Council is adding 4.2 ppm to breakfasts for children participating in the school breakfast scheme.

For comparison, in the US, the recommended safe level of fluoride in water is 0.7 ppm.

As Libertarianism UK noted , the US safe limit of 0.7 ppm was lowered in 2015 from the previous 0.7-1.2 ppm range. The Department of Health and Human Services lowered the safe limit because it was decided the higher limit of 1.2 ppm was a potential danger.

It's not only Blackpool council risking the health of children. At the end of its webpage, Blackpool Council notes that "a successful fluoride milk scheme has been operating in Manchester for a number of years." We couldn't find a start date for when Manchester began distributing fluoridated milk to schools. But we assume children in Manchester have been given the same unsafe 4.2 ppm of fluoride in each carton of milk for "a number of years."

Meanwhile, on the other side of the pond, the Federal Court in California ruled on Tuesday that adding 0.7 ppm of fluoride to water poses an unreasonable risk to children's intelligence.

Last month, the long-delayed final report from the US National Toxicology Programme ("NTP") confirmed that there is a large, consistent and reliable body of scientific research linking fluoride to reduced IQ.

After the release of the NTP report, it was expected that Californian Judge Edward Chen would issue his final ruling for a case brought against the US Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA").

For nearly a decade, Food & Water Watch, Fluoride Action Network and others have been in a legal battle with the EPA after the EPA denied their petition against local water utilities adding fluoride into water supplies.

Last week, on 24 September, Judge Chen issued his ruling. He ruled that fluoridation of water at 0.7 mg/l "poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children." 0.7 mg/l is the equivalent of 0.7 ppm.

Judge Chen noted that the finding does not "conclude with certainty" that fluoridated water is "injurious to public health" but does find there is "an unreasonable risk of such injury" and the EPA cannot ignore the risk.

Related: EPA Lawsuit , Fluoride Action Network and US Department of Health and Human Services report confirms fluoride exposure is associated with lower IQ in children

Federal Judge Rules Fluoride is a Neurotoxin in Historic Lawsuit Fluoride poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children, according to a US federal court.

By Derrick Broze as published by The Last American Vagabond

On Tuesday a federal court in California found that fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligrammes per litre "poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children."

The new ruling issued by Judge Edward Chen noted that the finding does not "conclude with certainty" that fluoridated water is "injurious to public health" but does find there is "an unreasonable risk of such injury." This risk is sufficient to require the EPA to enact a regulatory response, Chen wrote.

The decision is the latest ruling in an eight-year legal battle between the US Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and the Fluoride Action Network ("FAN"). The lawsuit began following the EPA's 2016 decision to deny the plaintiff's petition under the Toxic Substances Control Act ("TSCA"). The first phase of the trial took place in summer 2020 via Zoom and the second phase of the fluoride lawsuit concluded in February in San Francisco.

While Judge Chen did not tell the EPA what the response to the ruling should be, he did rule that the EPA cannot ignore the risk.

The EPA must now initiate a rulemaking process to determine what regulation they will implement to lower or eliminate the risk posed by water fluoridation. The EPA is likely to appeal the decision, but could also drag out the rulemaking process for years.

The Fluoride Action Network believes the most effective way to eliminate this risk is to end water fluoridation and ban the practice altogether.

"In our view, attempts by the EPA to appeal or delay this ruling will only result in harm to hundreds of thousands of additional children, particularly those whose families are unable to afford expensive reverse osmosis or distillation filtration of their tap water," wrote Stuart Cooper , Executive Director for the Fluoride Action Network.

Judge Chen's ruling includes several strong statements which make it clear his court has no doubt water fluoridation is causing harm, even at the levels currently recommended by US health agencies. These statements conflict with the claims of the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention and lobbying groups like the American Dental Association.

"The Court finds that fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligrams per litre ("mg/l") – the level presently considered 'optimal' in the United States – poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children," Chen wrote.

Chen goes on to note that "there is little dispute" regarding the hazard fluoride poses to human health. "Indeed, EPA's own expert agrees that fluoride is hazardous at some level of exposure," the judge acknowledges. "And ample evidence establishes that a mother's exposure to fluoride during pregnancy is associated with IQ decrements in her offspring."

Judge Chen's statement regarding fluoride exposure during pregnancy reinforces statements made by multiple expert witnesses presented by the FAN during the trials.

One such witness was Dr. Howard Hu . In February, Hu told the court that babies in the third trimester typically pull calcium from the mother's bones as they develop their skeletal structure. If a mother is receiving fluoride this will be stored in her bones. When her child begins pulling minerals from the mother it will also receive fluoride via the placenta.

Following his testimony to the court, Dr. Howard Hu confirmed to The Last American Vagabond that he believes fluoride is a neurotoxin.

"Yes. I would say that, in my view, the evidence is quite persuasive that there is a negative impact of fluoride exposure on the neurodevelopment of children, particularly the research that's been coming out in prenatal exposure," he said.

If you are unable to watch the video above on Rumble, you can watch it on Voluntary Tube HERE .

Judge Chen acknowledged that there is uncertainty as to the precise level at which fluoride becomes hazardous. However, he also stated that even with this uncertainty "the risk to health at exposure levels in United States drinking water is sufficiently high to trigger regulatory response by the EPA under Amended TSCA."

In response to the ruling, FAN's attorney, Michael Connett, said, "The Court has done what EPA has long refused to do: applied EPA's risk assessment framework to fluoride. It's a historic decision."

Connett also stated that while the EPA's rulemaking process begins, policymakers ought to ask, "Should we really be adding a neurotoxicant to our drinking water?"

Censored Report From the NTP Released in August The ruling comes on the heels of the release of a long-delayed and censored report from the US National Toxicology Programme ("NTP"). The NTP report found "moderate confidence" that fluoride exposure is "consistently associated with lower IQ in children"

The NTP is run by the US Department of Health and Human Services to coordinate, evaluate, and report on toxicology within public agencies, and is headquartered at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences ("NIEHS").

The NTP's final report was a factor in Judge Chen's ruling, with Chen writing, "Notwithstanding inherent difficulties in observing effects at lower exposure levels... scientists have observed a statistically significant association between fluoride and adverse effects in children even at such "lower" exposure levels (less than 1.5 mg/l)."

The NTP's final report, also known as a monograph, reported that 72 studies examined the "association between fluoride exposure and IQ in children," and 64 of those studied found "an inverse relationship associated between estimated fluoride exposure and IQ in children."

Of the total 72 studies, the NTP considered 19 of those studies to be "high quality", and of those high-quality studies, 18 "reported an inverse association between estimated fluoride exposure and IQ in children."

Even among another 53 studies which were considered to be "low-quality" the NTP found that "46 of the 53 low-quality studies [88%] in children also found evidence of an inverse association between estimated fluoride exposure and IQ in children."

The NTP report has been the source of controversy over the last couple of years as it became clear that elements of the US government were seeking to prevent its release.

Now that the final ruling from Judge Chen has been released, time will tell if local, state and national governments outside of the United States listen to the rulings and warnings, or continue to ignore the scientific data and allow the poisoning of their own populations.

About the Author