Biological dentistry has always emphasized the careful use of substances to minimize health risks. Recently, a significant fluoride ruling exemplified this approach, demanding critical action from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Bringing an end to an intense seven-year legal journey, the U.S. District Court of Northern California delivered a historic decision. The court demanded that the EPA takes necessary steps to eliminate the unreasonable health risk linked with water fluoridation, particularly for children. This victory marks a significant setback for those promoting fluoridation, including the American Dental Association and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. After 75 years of claims about the safety of fluoridation, the court declared that the support evidence isn’t substantial.
While the ruling didn’t exactly mention the regulations EPA must adopt, as per the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the agency is legally obliged to either restrict or completely overthrow the risk once the court declares a chemical poses such a threat.
The lawsuit, initiated under the TSCA 1976 provision, allows the EPA to take action if it proves a chemical implies an unreasonable risk to the public health. The TSCA even empowers citizen communities to contest the EPA’s judgment in court and encourages them to seek proper chemical regulations to protect public health.
This decision has far-reaching importance. It sets a ground-breaking precedent, being the first litigation under TSCA Section 21 won by a citizen’s petition. Indeed, this victory reveals new ways for environmental activist groups to force the EPA into increasingly thorough chemical regulations.
Looking forward, the court directed the EPA to design a new rule to reduce or eradicate the health risk of fluoridation chemicals, specifically on the brain. The only viable solution appears to be the end of fluoridation practice altogether.
Biological dentistry advocates and citizens alike await the EPA’s response, given the fundamental impact the decision holds. Their options include challenging the judgment in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit or potentially investing years in producing new regulations.
The introduction of enforceable rules limiting fluoridation represents a critical decision beyond the courtroom. It foregrounds the need for unified national and local action built on proven evidence, crucial to biological dentistry’s ethos and our communities. It is our responsibility to restrict potential damaging effects on our children’s brain development – after all, a dental cavity may be easily repaired, but brain damage is everlasting.
The International Academy of Biological Dentistry and Medicine (IABDM) is a network of dentists, physicians, and health professionals committed to promoting biological dentistry. We invite you to visit our website to learn more about our advocacy for biocompatible dental materials and toxin-free practices.