When the US district court ruled in our favor last September, it deemed fluoridated water an “unreasonable risk” to human health due to its neurotoxicity. The judge pointed out the scope of the potential harm:
“The size of the affected population is vast. Approximately 200 million Americans have fluoride intentionally added to their drinking water at a concentration of 0.7 mg/L…. Approximately two million pregnant women, and over 300,000 exclusively formula-fed babies are exposed to fluoridated water.” [p. 76]
Ever since the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) petitioned the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prohibit the use of fluoridation chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in 2016, our goal has been to protect the public as quickly as possible. We understand that every day, hundreds of thousands of children are experiencing unnecessary life-long and potentially life-altering brain impairment due to artificial fluoridation schemes. Countless others are experiencing side-effects to their liver, kidneys, endocrine system, bones, and much more.
Unfortunately, the EPA has spent the last 9-years working against our efforts, battling FAN in court and choosing to delay the legal process at every opportunity. Since filing a Notice of Intent to Appeal just days before the January 2025 deadline to do so, the EPA requested, and was granted, four deadline extensions to submit a brief with their arguments, delaying the process an additional 3-months. They stated that the previous and current Solicitor Generals had not approved or authorized an appeal.
The Legal Battle Continues
According to FAN attorney Michael Connett, the EPA has now received approval from Solicitor General John Sauer and plans to file their appeal on July 18, 2025. Michael Connett wrote:
“After several extensions, the Trump Administration has decided to appeal the federal court decision ordering EPA to address the risk posed by water fluoridation. EPA will be filing its appeal next Friday, July 18.
Rather than use the court’s decision as an opportunity to finally end water fluoridation (as most of Europe has already done), the EPA will spend its time legally challenging the court’s order. And it won’t be alone. The American Chemistry Council (a trade organization that represents the chemical industry) has just filed a motion asking for permission to file a brief. And so has the American Fluoridation Society, one of the most noxious lobbyist groups pushing fluoridation across the US.
The decision to appeal the court’s order was not made by the HHS or Secretary Kennedy. It was made by the Solicitor General of the Department of Justice, who reports to Pam Bondi and the White House. For his part, Secretary Kennedy has been clear that states should end their water fluoridation programs (as Florida and Utah have recently done), and that CDC will be revising its anachronistic recommendations, which would be a major development. The HHS does not, however, have the authority to ban fluoridation.
Only the EPA has this power, and it has decided, for now, to forego its historic opportunity (as provided by the court’s decision) to exercise it.
Our lawsuit against the EPA will thus continue, and will now be before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I had hoped this would not be necessary, but we are ready and prepared to stand up to EPA’s challenge.”
The appeal will be decided by a three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appeal process generally takes 6-12 months to resolve, although there is no guarantee of that short of a time frame. While some cases are decided based exclusively on written documents, some cases are selected for short oral arguments before a court panel. With most cases, the court of appeals decision is the final ruling unless the parties ask the US Supreme Court to review it or the case is sent back to the trial court for additional proceedings.
FAN will share the EPA’s written arguments and our response when they’re filed.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced in April that the EPA will be using the Safe Drinking Water Act’s six-year-review process to “expeditiously review new scientific information on potential health risks of fluoride in drinking water,” adding that “When this is completed, we will have an updated foundational scientific evaluation that will inform the agency’s future steps,” which will likely include a new maximum contaminant level (MCL) and maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG), which limit the levels of potentially harmful contaminants–such as fluoride–that water treatment operators can have in public water supplies.
Only time will tell if the EPA’s upcoming review will have any bearing whatsoever on the EPA’s appeal over the coming months.
Madison Area Lyme Support Group 