Court Determines Fluoridation Chemicals Pose Unjustifiable Threat to Health Safety
In a significant development, the United States District Court of the Northern District of California has ruled in favor of the Fluoride Action Network and the plaintiffs in a court case against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This ruling marks a momentous occasion after 7 years of legal action, led by attorney Michael Connett.
The court finding states that fluoridation of drinking water at 0.7 milligrams per liter (mg/L) poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children. Consequently, the EPA cannot ignore this risk, and will be forced to regulate fluoridation as such due to the court's ruling.
The court has deemed fluoridation an "unreasonable risk" to the health of children. This ruling is based on the court's finding that there is an unreasonable risk of injury, a risk sufficient to require the EPA to engage with a regulatory response.
The ruling was made public and can be found at: https://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Court-Ruling.pdf
It's important to note that many other team members were also involved in making this ruling a reality. Co-plaintiffs and donors who spread the word about the case deserve appreciation and thanks for their contributions.
This ruling comes amidst ongoing legal challenges and regulatory debates concerning fluoride's safety, particularly its impact on health. These challenges appear to involve federal environmental and public health agencies but do not reference a conclusive district court ruling in Northern California on fluoridation risks to children, beyond this specific case.
The implications of this ruling are far-reaching, and it remains to be seen how the EPA will respond and implement the necessary regulatory actions. This decision underscores the importance of ongoing research and public discourse on the safety of fluoridation in drinking water.
The court's ruling against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) highlights the perceived risk of reduced IQ in children from water fluoridation at 0.7 mg/L, prompting the EPA to reconsider its regulation of this practice. This judgment follows a 7-year legal battle led by attorney Michael Connett and other team members.
The court has identified fluoridation as an unreasonable risk to the mental health of children, requiring the EPA to respond with regulatory measures. This ruling has been made public and can be accessed at: https://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Court-Ruling.pdf
The implications of this ruling extend to broader discussions on health-and-wellness, policy-and-legislation, and mental-health, given the ongoing debates concerning fluoride's safety in drinking water.
The ruling marks an important milestone in the general news landscape, emphasizing the significance of research-based evidence in shaping science-related policies.
