A federal court trial underway in San Francisco could spell the beginning of the end of water fluoridation in America, potentially affecting drinking water for hundreds of millions of people across the U.S.
Although fluoride can occur naturally in water, many water utilities add the chemical with the goal of improving dental health. But an alliance of groups led by Food & Water Watch, a government accountability nonprofit, have sued the Environmental Protection Agency to force it to limit or ban adding fluoride altogether. They contend that the chemical presents an “unreasonable risk’’ of causing neurological damage, especially to young children and babies in the womb.
In opening statements today, plaintiffs lawyer Michael Connett said it ”will be undisputed in this case that babies who are bottle-fed with fluoridated water receive the highest doses of fluoride of any age group.” At the time of “their greatest vulnerability, we are exposing infants, often from the poorest, most disadvantage communities, to a very high burden of fluoride,” Connett said.
But James Do, a Justice Department lawyer representing the EPA, said there are too many ”uncertainties and inconsistencies” in the evidence. “Let’s be one hundred percent clear here,” Do said. ”If EPA could conclude that there was an unreasonable risk from water fluoridation, EPA would regulate.”
As reported by FairWarning, water agencies first began adding fluoride in the 1940s, and today nearly 75 percent of Americans on public water systems are served fluoridated water. Fluoridation has been a lightning rod for crackpot conspiracy theories, including that it is part of a government plot to achieve mind control. Despite the outlandish nature of these fever dreams, fluoride is far from a benign chemical, health experts say.
As things stands, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has set an advisory limit of 0.7 parts of fluoride per million parts of water as the optimum level to help prevent tooth decay while avoiding other problems associated with excessive fluoride exposure. These include dental fluorosis—which can lead to severe staining of the teeth, enamel erosion and pitting—and at much higher exposure levels skeletal fluorosis, a disease associated with joint pain, fractures and the bone disorder osteosclerosis.
But the EPA, which regulates drinking water quality, has not acted to limit the amount of fluoride that can be added. It requires that when fluoride concentrations exceed 2 parts per million parts that customers be alerted, and sets a maximum level of 4 ppm—an allowance for water systems with high levels of naturally occurring fluoride.

Subscribe to receive occasional alerts in your inbox
According to the CDC, of approximately 275 million Americans on public water systems, more than 200 million are served water with fluoride added. An analysis by the Environmental Working Group, a research and advocacy organization, found that about 30 million people receive tap water with fluoride levels higher than the CDC recommendation.
Medical and dental authorities say that a small dose of the chemical is beneficial for dental health. The CDC claims that fluoridation reduces cavities by about 25% in children and adults. Still, a growing body of evidence suggests that Americans are routinely exposed to more fluoride than is good for them.
Experts point out that people already receive a daily dose of fluoride in toothpaste and mouthwash, and in many bottled drinks and processed foods. A key focus of the federal trial is a growing stack of scientific literature showing potential neurological harm from even low levels of fluoride.
In 2016, a 13-year study conducted in Mexico found that higher prenatal exposures to fluoride were associated with lower intelligence test scores for children later on. Between 2018 and 2019, several studies from Canada found similar effects, including that more fluoride in the urine of expectant mothers corresponded with an IQ loss in male children, and that youths from areas with fluoridated water had a higher prevalence of ADHD.
The EPA has asserted that there isn’t enough evidence showing neurological damage from low levels of fluoride, and that the benefits of fluoridation outweigh the risks.
Fluoride in the Water: Too Much of a Good Thing?
The case before U.S. District Judge Edward Chen began its slow road to trial in 2016, when the plaintiffs petitioned the EPA to begin the process of banning fluoridation. A court subsequently denied the EPA’s motion to dismiss the petition, setting the stage for the legal showdown. In the months leading up to the trial, judge Edward Chen made several rulings that carry the potential to shape its outcome, including one that bars the EPA from providing evidence of fluoride’s health benefits.
The case, being tried without a jury, was filed under the federal Toxic Substances Control Act, and this is the first time a citizen’s petition under that law has made it to the trial stage, Robert Sussman, a former EPA deputy administrator, told FairWarning. “This is very much a precedent setting case which is going down a road nobody’s traveled down before,” Sussman said.
If the plaintiffs are successful, the case won’t necessarily signal the end to water fluoridation, but could cause the EPA to limit how much fluoride can be added. Any new rules could take years to implement.
“This is a good public health exercise,” said Mike Keegan, regulatory analyst for the National Rural Water Association, which represents officials of small community water systems. “You want to make sure this is an asset you’re putting into the water supply.”
Did you like this story? Your support means a lot! Your tax-deductible donation in any amount will advance our mission of delivering strong watchdog reporting.
Flouride is pollution
Fluoridation is dumping industrial waste in public water. It is highly illegal and immoral. But it is not an accident. The purpose is and always was to decrease the average intelligence of the population. That makes it much easier for governments to successfully lie to people.
Fluoride is not the only toxic chemical found in our drinking water..i now struggle to see clearly from contaminants in our drinking water purchased from the Houston County Utilities System in Warner Robins Georgia…althoug we living in Byron Ga/ Peach County we are forced to purchase tap water from Houston County sometimes BLACK TAP Water comes through the water lines here at Sunnyland Community mobile Home Park Byron Georgia …i am now fighting in court along with 2 attempted Retalitory Dispossessoroes due to complaints from my injuries and from suffering from the landlords tax and trash bill being dumped on us.
https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/statistics/index.htm here you can find the fluoride levels in the water you drink
Check out FLUORIDEALERT.ORG for a massive database of fluoride studies and related content, as well as complete coverage (that you can watch live btw) of the fluoride trial that is happening currently.
I appreciate this article more than words can express!! This controversial topic has created so many debates it is a relief to see people taking action rooted in science; regardless of it’s popularity. It never dawned on me that infants would be the most exposed + vulnerable if taking formula…. Keep up the great work!
At the risk of rushing to judgement, it seems pretty clear, from the testimony so far, that the EPA has given special status to fluoride that is hasn’t given to any other substance it monitors. If that is found to be the case, the next question would be: Who is responsible for this bias?
If lack of fluoride does cause dental problems we should let people know what natural foods give us fluoride. Mass medication should not be necessary in an enlightened society.
Where in the constitution are local water districts authorized to practice medicine and without the consent of the patient?
There is no way that drinking water stays in your mouth and therefor on your teeth long enough to be absorbed and possibly reduce carries.
The correlation between floridation and carries reduction in children is coincidental with better oral hygiene.
What the article doesn’t address is if there are any water providers in the US that add fluoride to drinking water to a level above the CDC recommended limit of 0.7 PPM. I would like to know, but I would be surprised if there were. I suspect that those that supply water with >0.7 PPM are all just passing along what is naturally occurring in the water, or occasionally exceed the 0.7 threshold because of natural variations in the chemistry of the raw water.
I would also have liked to be told which foods and bottled beverages contain added fluoride. I was not aware such a thing was done, and I am still skeptical that it is true. A brief internet search only produced a single drink product and that was one specifically marketed as a source of fluoride for young children that live where their drinking water is not fluoridated. The article didn’t specifically say “added fluoride,” but that was what it implied to me, based on context (following toothpastes and mouthwashes and the adjective “processed” being attached to “foods.” Fluoride occurs naturally in many drinks and foods.).
Please note that natures way for creatures to get the fluoride for creating strong tooth enamel (and proper bones) is through ingesting it, not topically applying it to teeth. The problem is that some area’s water supply and food supply does not provide an optimum level of fluoride in the average diet. Thus was born the idea of supplementation. There are numerous nutrients for which this situation exists. In the US, most flour is “enriched.” In the US, most milk has Vitamin D added. Iodine is commonly added to salt. Whether the fluoride in drinking water solution was the right solution, or even a good solution, is an open debate.
I will close by saying that, just coincidentally, my children mostly grew up in areas without fluoride added to the drinking water. We were less that completely faithful in giving them their fluoride supplement tablets every day throughout their childhood. Their mother’s opinion about fluoride supplementation waxed and waned before settling on ambivalent. Probably because the data on both sides of the debate is pretty lame. I find myself sympathizing with the pro-fluoride camp, but only because of the really outrageous claims coming from segments of the anti-fluoride camp. Lame data is less offensive to me than are outrageous claims.
We should have a choice if we want fluoride in our water. Those who want it can have it and those who don’t won’t be forced to drink it.
You omitted the Harvard study on lowered IQ
as well as the facts that fluoride is a neurological toxin , and damages the thyroid gland . The first environmental class action
suit was in response to local residents and cattle dying in Donora Pennsylvania due to toxic fluorine fumes from a fluoride processing plant.
in 1948.
Wow, “crackpot theories” but then the author goes on to admit that Mexican and Canadian studies (among many, many others) confirm that fluoridation lowers IQ. European public water systems are NOT fluoridated and they’re not suffering with massive tooth decay. Hmm interesting.
Fluorine compounds or fluorides are listed by the US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) as among the top 20 of 275 substances that pose the most significant threat to human health.
The Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products, 5th Edition (1984) rates lead with a toxicity rating of 3 to 4 (3 = moderately toxic, 4 = very toxic). The EPA set 0.015 ppm as the MCL for lead in drinking water–with a goal of 0.0ppm. Yet, the toxicity rating for fluoride is 4 (very toxic), and the MCL for fluoride is currently set at 4.0ppm, over 250 times the permissable level for lead.
In 1944, the Journal of the American Dental Association (yeah, exactly) said: “With 1.6 to 4 ppm fluoride in the water, 50 percent or more past age 24 have false teeth because of fluoride damage to their own [teeth].”
There’s lots more evidence out there, if you’re willing to look. Then again, it’s pretty scary to know the truth…….
Court cases like these have lost every time they have gone to court because there is no current, compelling scientific, peer reviewed study that legitimately proves that optimal community water fluoridation causes harm to individuals. It is an equitable public health solution to supporting oral health across all economic spectra.
I agree, Elizabeth. Adding fluoride to the tap water is unneeded with today’s dental products. There are also naturally occurring high levels of fluoride in some water sources that need to be reduced.
There’s a big difference between topical fluoride (ON your teeth, strengthening enamel) and systemic fluoride (IN your drinking water, disrupting metabolic processes). If the goal is better dental health, money spent dosing municipal water supplies would be better spent on free fluoridated dental products for those who want them.