EPA denies petition to end fluoridation in the United States


Posted & filed under Facts about Fluoride, Fluoride and Public Health, Fluoride in the News.

On November 23, 2016, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and other groups delivered a petition to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requesting that the agency “prohibit the purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to U.S. water supplies” under Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 6. On February 27, 2017, a response was published in the Federal Register. The EPA has denied the petition.

In order to succeed, a petition such as this must “set forth the facts which it is claimed establish that it is necessary” and “present a scientific basis for action”. In this case, the primary claim was that fluoride added to water ‘poses neurotoxic risks’ to the population. The petition sought to cease the practice of fluoridating water in the U.S. and more.

“EPA interprets the petition as requesting both a TSCA section 6(a)(5) rule whereby the purposeful addition of any fluoridation chemical to a drinking water supply would be prohibited and a TSCA section 6(a)(2) rule whereby the manufacture, processing, or distribution in commerce of any fluoridation chemical for such use would be prohibited.”

Not only did the EPA find that the petitioners failed to make this case, but it also detailed the many reasons why, when provided, the data were scientifically insufficient and why.

“After careful consideration, EPA denied the TSCA section 21 petition, primarily because EPA concluded that the petition has not set forth a scientifically defensible basis to conclude that any persons have suffered neurotoxic harm as a result of exposure to fluoride in the U.S. through the purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to drinking water or otherwise from fluoride exposure in the U.S.”

Several comprehensive reviews of the decision have been published, including this one in Dr Bicuspid. The health community applauds the Environmental Protection Agency for requiring that high scientific standards be met and detailing why, yet again, the case for water fluoridation remains strong.