EPA Office of Water to conduct fluoride review

NORTHEAST WIS. – Peshtigo native Brenda Staudenmaier’s pleas for lower levels of fluoride in drinking water aren’t falling on deaf ears.

While attorneys for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continue to appeal a U.S. District Court judge’s order to lower fluoride’s Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for drinking water, the EPA’s leaders seem to be losing patience.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said on Jan. 22 the agency’s Office of Water is starting a separate review of fluoride using the Safe Drinking Water Act, a different statute than the Toxic Substances Control Act Staudenmaier used to file a complaint about fluoride levels in community drinking water systems 10 years ago.

Staudenmaier is a plaintiff in the Food and Water Watch v. U.S EPA case now being heard on the EPA’s appeal after a U.S. District Judge sided with Staudenmaier and other plaintiffs on Sept. 24, 2024, ordering the EPA to review its MCLs for fluoride.

This new scientific review won’t examine the dental benefits of fluoride, but instead focus on fluoride’s health effects.

“The EPA is acknowledging that its role is not to justify fluoridation, but to evaluate risk,” said Staudenmaier.

In addition to the legal case, she has spoken at public meetings and corresponded with scientists and local water boards about fluoride’s neurotoxicity. This comes as new research has linked fluoride consumption in fetuses, infants and children to lower Intelligence Quotient (IQ) scores and behavior issues.

It’s also been associated with physical health issues.

“We need a better understanding of the relationship between fluoride exposure and thyroid dysfunction, brittle bones and fracture risk in the elderly, Alzheimer’s disease and cancers such as bone and bladder cancer. These concerns have persisted for decades,” Staudenmaier said.

Advocating for continued fluoridation is the American Dental Association and public health departments supporting fluoridated community water as an effective way to prevent tooth decay.

The Office of Water’s upcoming review represents a shift for the agency away from its previous stance of putting cavity prevention above other health considerations.

“From what I understand, EPA has no statutory authority to weigh medical benefits when evaluating a contaminant under drinking water law. Its responsibility is to determine whether a substance poses a risk to human health,” Staudenmaier said.

The Office of Water’s review also raises questions for Staudenmaier about why the EPA didn’t take her suggestion to re-examine the Maximum Contaminant Levels for fluoride a decade ago in the wake of new scientific literature raising concerns of health effects.
“In my opinion, EPA routinely wastes millions of taxpayer dollars in each case… even when credible evidence of harm exists,” Staudenmaier said.

Staudenmaier speculated the EPA attorneys opposing her and Food and Water Watch wouldn’t want to drop their appeal at this point and concede the plaintiffs were correct.

To Staudenmaier, the EPA attorneys’ position has little to do with the agency’s task of protecting the public’s health.

“This maneuver appears designed to control precedent and liability, not to accelerate protections for public health,” she continued.

The review process could take several years, said Michael Connett, the lead attorney in the Food and Water Watch v. U.S. EPA case.

The EPA’s Office of Water will lead the new fluoride review and ask for public comments at several different stages, he predicted.

Connett and attorneys for the EPA have been filing briefs and responses, with each party hoping the appellate court will side with them.

The EPA’s latest response — filed a few days after the Jan. 22 Office of Water announced a separate review — included a lengthy discussion of a woman who consumed bottled water out of concern regarding natural and added fluoride.

While the woman stated, “I try to do whatever I reasonably can to limit my ingestion of fluoride,” the EPA’s attorneys argued a witness avoiding tap water would continue to do so regardless of the lawsuit’s outcome.

Their primary argument, however, is that U.S. District Court Judge Edward Chen improperly allowed scientific research to be considered that wasn’t available when the case began. The EPA has said it wants the plaintiffs to start over with a new claim using the more recent research.

In the court of public opinion, Staudenmaier said, “ [the] demand for fluoride-free dental products is growing. Hydroxyapatite toothpastes and products like Theodent sealants are becoming more common. That shift reflects a growing willingness to question old assumptions and make choices based on emerging science rather than decades of advertising.”