Search Results

Fluoride Free Canada's mission is to educate the public and decision-makers on the urgent need to eliminate artificial water fluoridation across Canada, on both ethical and safety grounds. To play, press and hold the enter key. To stop, release the enter key. May 22, 2026: Appeals Court Makes Decision On Fluoridation Lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) A three-justice panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has decided to send our case back to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where Judge Edward Chen will be required to make a second ruling based only on scientific evidence and testimony presented prior to August 2020. Read more here March 20, 2026: Petition to the Environmental Commissioner at the Office of the Auditor General Fluoride Free Canada, with the support of the environmental organizations Eau Secours , Citizens Environment Alliance of Southwestern Ontario , Watershed Watchers Environmental Network , and Windsor Essex On Watch , presented a petition under section 22 of the Auditor General Act to the Environmental Commissioner at the Office of Canada's Auditor General, asking him: To stop the injection of toxic substances into drinking water, namely anthropogenic inorganic fluorides (hexafluorosilicic acid, sodium fluorosilicate and sodium fluoride), contaminated with toxic metals (arsenic, lead, aluminum), for therapeutic purposes, recommended by Health Canada but in violation of The Fisheries Act . Section 34(1), outlining provisions to conserve and protect fish habitat that sustains Canada's fishery resources and to prevent its deterioration Section 35(1), prohibiting the deterioration, destruction, or disturbance of fish habitat Sections 36-42 controlling the discharge of any harmful substance into water and fish habitat The petition also requests that Health Canada define the legal classification of chemicals used for fluoridation, and that they acknowledge that they do not guarantee the effectiveness, safety, or sanitary quality of these chemicals. Finally, it asks that Health Canada explain how it can claim that drinking water fluoridation is an effective and safe health measure, given that Health Canada, the provincial ministries of health, municipalities, the National Sanitation Foundation, and the manufacturers of fluoridation chemicals do not conduct any analyses or tests on the effectiveness, safety, or the sanitary quality of these products. Read the petition March 4, 2026: EPA’s Bid to Overturn Landmark Fluoride Ruling Based on Process, Not Public Health Concerns, by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a hearing on Tuesday urged a federal appeals court to reverse a landmark 2024 decision ordering the agency to regulate fluoride added to drinking water. The EPA did not dispute the substance of the 2024 ruling — that fluoride added to drinking water poses an “unreasonable risk” to children’s health and the agency must regulate it. Instead, the agency argued to a three-judge panel that U.S. District Judge Edward Chen overstepped standard judicial process when he put the original trial on hold in 2020 to wait for new scientific evidence. Read more... ADVOCACY WHO FLUORIDATES & WHO DOESN'T ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS OF FLUORIDE NEW SCIENCE WHO OPPOSES FLUORIDATION

THE U.S. LAWSUIT AGAINST WATER FLUORIDATION — Food and Water Watch, et al. vs Environmental Protection Agency TRIAL TIMELINE In the Fall of 2016, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), under provisions in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prohibit the deliberate addition of fluoridating chemicals to the public drinking water, because they posed an unacceptable risk to the brain. Hard copies of approximately 300 animal and human studies were offered in support of this petition. In 2017, the EPA rejected the petition. FAN, along with several other groups and individuals, appealed this decision in Federal Court (the 9th District, located in San Francisco). The case was heard (via Zoom) in June 2020 over a period of two weeks, with Judge Edward Chen presiding. Even though the weight of evidence on fluoride’s ability to harm the human brain was very convincing, FAN’s case was greatly bolstered in September 2017, when the first of several U.S. Government-funded mother-offspring studies was published (Bashash, 2017). This was the first major study that had examined exposure to fluoride during pregnancy (i.e. exposure at the fetal change). The results were very striking and could not have been more helpful to FAN’s case. Bashash found a strong relationship between the level of fluoride exposure to pregnant women (as measured in their urine) and a lowered IQ in their offspring. The studies were very rigorous (confounding variables were controlled for and all measurements were made at the individual level). Moreover, the mothers’ exposures were at levels commonly experienced in artificially fluoridated communities in Canada and the USA. FAN’s case was furthered bolstered by three other studies published before the trial began (Bashash, 2018; Green 2019 and Till 2020). In the June trial, FAN was able to produce expert testimony of two of the key authors of the mother-child IQ studies (Bruce Lanphear (Green 2019 and Till 2020) and Howard Hu (Bashash, 2017). They also had expert testimony from two risk assessment specialists, Kathleen Thiessen, PhD, a member of the National Research Council that researched fluoride toxicity in 2006 (NRC 2006) and Philippe Grandjean, a key author of the Harvard meta-analysis of IQ studies published in 2012, and the lead author for the Benchmark Dose (BMD) analysis (subsequently published in 2021). The big surprise was the that EPA chose not to use any of its own fluoride experts in defending their position but instead hired the company Exponent to do so. Exponent is renowned for defending a whole range of very toxic products and by-products for the chemical industry (Dow, Dupont, Monsanto etc.) which have included: dioxins, PCBs, glyphosate and PFAs. Even though the Exponent lawyers did their best to muddy the waters by arguing that FAN had failed to perform a state of the art systematic review of the literature before declaring that fluoride was a neurotoxic hazard, even they had to conceded in cross-examination, that the National Institute of Environmental Health Science (NIEHS)-funded studies mentioned above, were the most important and rigorous studies conducted to date. The Judge surprised those watching the case via zoom, when he interrupted the EPAs lawyer in her closing argument when she was trying to establish that fluoride was not a neurotoxic hazard. The judge opined that (1) fluoride was clearly a neurotoxic hazard citing, what both parties had agreed were the strongest studies conducted to date; and (2) argued that the EPA was demanding a standard of proof that even the best epidemiological studies cannot provide: namely, cause and effect. To the plaintiff’s ears, this sounded like a victory, however the judge has postponed his final verdict until he has seen two more documents: the National Toxicology Program's (NTP) systematic review of Fluoride’s Neurotoxicity (requested by FAN in 2016) and a published version of the BMD analysis (risk assessment to determine a safe reference dose for fluoride based upon the pooled data in two of the mother-child studies (Bashash , 2017 and Green, 2019). The BMD analysis was published in June, but we are still waiting for the final report from the NTP. The judge has indicated that when the studies are in his hand (and possibly other mother-child studies being conducted), that he would probably entertain some more expert testimony from both sides on these published findings. To date all attempts by the EPA to throw out the plaintiff’s case on the issue of standing have failed as well as the EPA's argument that FAN should refile their petition, because key evidence has been published since the original petition was filed in 2016. Throughout the proceedings, the judge made it clear that he is interested in what the best science has shown, rather than EPA's arcane arguments about what constitutes systematic reviews. Hence he insists on waiting for the NTP’s own review, before he makes his ruling. The National Toxicology Program (NTP) Review is expected before the end of this year and the final ruling possibly in early 2022. DECEMBER 31, 2021 SEPTEMBER 19, 2022 The next status hearing for our federal TSCA lawsuit against the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to end the use of fluoridation chemicals was originally scheduled for this upcoming Tuesday, September 20th, but has again been rescheduled by the Court. While I suspect that you are as frustrated as all of us here at the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) about the two year delay since our trial was held, we have some promising news. First, the next hearing before the Court is now scheduled for Thursday, October 20th, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. (US Pacific) / 4:30 (US Eastern). Second, the October hearing is expected to be more than a typical status update from both parties. For the past two years, the Court has been awaiting the final publication of the National Toxicology Program’s review on fluoride's neurotoxicity . This final publication was expected at the end of 2021, then promised again earlier this year, with May being the long-awaited release date. However, May came and went without any sign of the NTP report. For this reason, the Court continued to postpone our status hearings throughout the Summer. In response to this indefinite postponement, last week FAN's attorneys filed a motion asking the Court to take the case out of abeyance and to restart it with an abbreviated second trial to review the latest scientific studies and NTP review. The NTP report is the culmination of years of research and work, and has already gone through at least three peer reviews. There is no longer a reasonable justification to wait for the powers-that-be to decide when, or if, it should be released to the public. We feel there is enough evidence available from the publicly available draft NTP reports and from other materials since the trial in June 2020 to complete the case and for the Court to render a decision. We’re confident the evidence is also strongly in our favor, including from the NTP’s review. In short, we’ve patiently waited for the National Institutes of Health and the NTP to finalize this review of fluoride's neurotoxicity. We’re done waiting. It’s time for justice to be served, and we’re hoping that the October hearing will bring us closer to that end. Thank you for your continued support, Stuart Cooper Executive Director Fluoride Action Network OCTOBER 31, 2022 BIG NEWS! The Court ruled in favor of our motion, and the lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in federal court is moving forward, bringing us another step closer to a final ruling. If you missed Wednesday's exciting hearing in federal court, you will be able to watch it. The court recorded the proceedings and will release it to the public. I was waiting to include a link to the recording in this bulletin, but it hasn't been released yet. When it is, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) will immediately share it with you in an email and on social media. Stay tuned! In the meantime, here's what happened. At the end of the initial trial in June of 2020, the Court put a stay/abeyance on the proceedings, wanting to wait for the National Toxicology Program (NTP) to finalize its review of the science on fluoride and human neurotoxicity. At the time, lawyers for the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) told the Court that the review would be forthcoming, and based on the NTP's typical review process, the delay on our trial ought to have been short-lived. However, in unprecedented fashion, the NTP has subjected their fluoride report to at least three separate peer-reviews, with a fourth currently ongoing. This is in contrast to previous NTP Monographs on other chemicals, where there has only been one public peer-review culminating in a public vote by a panel of scientists. More than two-years after the Court was assured a final document, the NTP has yet to publish one. FAN and our attorneys felt that we had waited patiently for long enough. Prior to Wednesday's hearing, our attorneys filed a motion asking the Court to take the case out of abeyance and to hold a second trial where our experts can comment on the latest scientific studies, including existing versions of the NTP review. If the Court wasn't inclined to hold a second phase of the trial, we also expressed support for a ruling based on the existing record rather than continue waiting for the NTP. The EPA objected to ending the stay, preferring the Court to either wait for the final NTP review or make a ruling based on the existing court record. The EPA were not in favor of reopening the trial to more expert testimony, new evidence, or any version of the NTP report but the "final" version, if one is ever published. That timeline would have likely delayed the trial into late 2023 or beyond. On Wednesday, the Court ruled in favor of our motion to lift the stay on the proceedings . Not only did this signal the Court's desire to move forward with our case, but the Court specifically reopened discovery so attorneys and the Court could examine an updated version of the NTP's review, without it needing to be published. The EPA's objections to using any version of the NTP report besides the "final" version was based on their concern that the NTP's findings would be made public prematurely. To circumvent this objection, the Court placed the NTP's review under protective order so that it will only be available to the parties involved, the Court, and expert witnesses. The public will not have access unless the Court decides otherwise, or if FAN wins a separate pending legal case on our Freedom of Information Act Request (FOIA) for the report. Thankfully, the Court made it clear to both parties that it expects to be provided with the NTP review before the next status hearing set for early January, regardless of what process is used to get it. The Court urged both parties to come together and find a way to get the current NTP review into the Court's hands "voluntarily," but our attorney, Michael Connett, was also told that if he needs the Court's help "using subpoenas or a motion to compel," he knows where to find the Judge. This was another victory for our side, as the Court clearly agreed with our argument that the updated NTP draft was worth looking at, and took action to obtain it. In agreement with FAN's position, the Court reiterated its preference for a phase-two of the trial, with additional expert testimony. The Court also wants the NTP Director to explain in detail the remaining timeline for publishing their "final" review and the criteria for determining whether the review will be published or not. Once the Court has the NTP review, the Judge will read it, as well as consider the NTP Director's responses to his questions. A determination will then be made whether to wait a little longer for the NTP to publish a "final" report, or admit the NTP draft as evidence, allowing us to immediately move the trial into the next phase. We should find out at the next status hearing, scheduled for Tuesday, January 10, at 2:30PM (Pacific). For more information about lawsuit, including a trial timeline and documents, click here . For more information on the NTP's Review, click here . Thank you for your continued support, Stuart Cooper Executive Director Fluoride Action Network PS: Video of the Motion on October 26th now available (below). OCTOBER 26, 2022 In this video you will see our attorney, Michael Connett, argue successfully on behalf of our motion to end the stay on the trial and reopen discovery so attorneys and the Court could examine the final draft of the NTP report that was supposed to be published in May of 2022. You will also see the attorney for the EPA, Brandon Adkins, argue to keep the trial suspended, and argue against additional expert testimony on new evidence, and against the National Toxicology Program having to turn over their final draft from May. The Department of Justice--on behalf of the EPA--has since complied with the Court and turned over a copy of the unpublished NTP report, though it is under a protective order and not available to the public at this time. NOVEMBER 30, 2022 JULY 5, 2023 In the following interview, Paul Connett, PhD , a retired professor of chemistry specializing in environmental chemistry and toxicology, gives an update on the lawsuit with the Environmental Protection Agency, and details VERY passionately his experiences and frustration in dealing with government agencies. JANUARY 13, 2024 In this video, lead attorney on the case, Michael Connett , sits down with Children’s Health Defense President, Mary Holland to pull back the curtain on fluoride and provide a blow-by-blow review of documents unearthed by the Freedom of Information Act. These documents show that a landmark federal review of fluoride’s hazards to the brain has been blocked by political leadership at the highest levels of the Department of Health & Human Services. Several shocking interviews of federal health experts deposed in the case, including representatives for the Center for Disease Control and the Environmental Protection Agency, reveal the unsettling truth about fluoride. JANUARY 30, 2024 One day before the start of the trial, lead attorney Michael Connett was interviewed on The Kim Iversen Show . He talked about those who are the most vulnerable to ingesting fluoride: pregnant mothers, formula-fed babies and those with kidney disease. He also explained fluoride's correlation to hip fractures and hypothyroidism. JANUARY 31 to FEBRUARY 14, 2024 — T H E T R I A L Follow the fascinating "blow-by-blow" documented on the Fluoride Action Network's (FANs) website . Below are interviews with a few of FANs expert witnesses at trial: Dr. Howard Hu, Dr. Bruce Lanphear and Dr. Philippe Grandjean. DR. HOWARD HU was the principal investigator in the Mexican ELEMENT study, a pregnancy and birth cohort on fluoride’s impact on neurobehavioral development. The research was funded by the EPA and the National Institutes of Health. Hu has also been involved in research on lead toxicity and anti-social behaviour. DR. BRUCE LANPHEAR is a public health physician and pediatric epidemiologist who specializes in environmental exposures including lead and other toxic chemicals. Dr. Lanphear has an M.D. from the University of Missouri at Kansas City and an M.P.H. from the Tulane School of Public Health. He is an expert on lead toxicity whose own work has been used by the EPA to develop their standards on lead. DR. PHILIPPE GRANDJEAN is a Danish scientist working in environmental medicine. He is the head of the Environmental Medicine Research Unit at the University of Southern Denmark and adjunct professor of environmental health at the Harvard School of Public Health. Grandjean has an extensive history of researching mercury. FEBRUARY 20, 2024 - THE TRIAL CLOSING STATEMENTS The TSCA Fluoride Lawsuit wrapped up on Tuesday, February 20, 2024 after a 3-hour hearing featuring interactive closing statements from both parties. NOW AWAITING JUDGE EDWARD CHEN'S DECISION. Timeline The Latest SEPTEMBER 24, 2024 - THE RULING - WE WON! History was made . After 7 years of pursuing legal action against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over the risk posed to the developing brain by the practice of water fluoridation, the United States District Court of the Northern District of California has just ruled on behalf of the Fluoride Action Network and the plaintiffs in our precedent-setting court case . A U.S. federal court has now deemed fluoridation an "unreasonable risk" to the health of children , and the EPA will be forced to regulate it as such. Below is an excerpt from the introduction of the ruling: "The issue before this Court is whether the Plaintiffs have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the fluoridation of drinking water at levels typical in the United States poses an unreasonable risk of injury to health of the public within the meaning of Amended TSCA. For the reasons set forth below, the Court so finds. Specifically, the Court finds that fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligrams per liter (“mg/L”) – the level presently considered “optimal” in the United States – poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children..the Court finds there is an unreasonable risk of such injury, a risk sufficient to require the EPA to engage with a regulatory response...One thing the EPA cannot do, however, in the face of this Court’s finding, is to ignore that risk." PRESS RELEASE Let the lawyer for the Plaintiff's, MICHAEL CONNETT , tell you the terrific news in the following video interview with Del Bigtree of The Highwire, where he says: "The Court has ordered the [EPA] to initiate a rule-making proceeding to eliminate this risk to the brain from adding fluoride chemicals to drinking water." COURT CASE FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Fluoride Free Canada's mission is to educate the public and decision-makers on the urgent need to eliminate artificial water fluoridation across Canada, on both ethical and safety grounds. May 22, 2026: Appeals Court Makes Decision On Fluoridation Lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Statement by Stuart Cooper, Executive Director, Fluoride Action Network: A three-justice panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has decided to send our case back to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where Judge Edward Chen will be required to make a second ruling based only on scientific evidence and testimony presented prior to August 2020. The decision by the Court of Appeals was based solely on interpretations of technical procedural steps taken during the litigation and did not dispute the science showing harm or the lower court’s 2024 determination that fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk to human health due to the significant side-effects on fetal and infant brain development. It’s also important to note that while this isn’t the immediate outcome FAN wanted, the Appellate Court did not agree with the EPA’s request to reverse the lower court’s decision. The Court also didn’t agree with 2 of the 3 objections the EPA had as part of their appeal. FAN hasn’t lost and the EPA hasn’t won. In short, the case is still ongoing and our legal team is looking at all scenarios and all possible next steps available. But for now, the decision means that Judge Chen will have to write a new ruling based exclusively on the evidence presented during the first phase of the trial. In a memorandum issued last night, the Court of Appeals vacated–or set aside–the lower court’s ruling, arguing that Judge Chen didn’t follow the “party presentation principle” that limits how active judges can be in allowing the introduction of new evidence and/or legal issues into proceedings. The Court wrote that Chen violated this principle with his 2020 decision to put the case in abeyance after the conclusion of the first bench trial to wait for the publication of the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) review of fluoride and developmental neurotoxicity so that it could be included as evidence. While Judge Chen chose to extend the proceedings to incorporate the most recent and robust scientific findings, the appellate court characterized his due diligence as a form of judicial overreach simply because both the plaintiffs and defendant expressed in 2020 that they would prefer not to delay the case. Michael Connett, our legal counsel, told The Defender that this disappointing decision by the Court of Appeals was “a very expansive and unprecedented application of the party presentation principle.” He said that to date, “this principle has really only been applied to situations where judges raise new legal issues, not where judges use procedural mechanisms to resolve the issues presented.” He added that “The Court has instructed Judge Chen to travel back in time to 2020 and make this ruling based on a stale factual record. Their directive to ignore years’ worth of evidence on fluoride’s dangers runs counter to the intent of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).” As was described in the lower court’s ruling in our favor, the scope of the harm occurring throughout the US on a daily basis due to fluoridation is significant, and the most disappointing aspect of this legal decision is that our eventual success will continue to be delayed, causing further unnecessary harm to the public: "The size of the affected population is vast. Approximately 200 million Americans have fluoride intentionally added to their drinking water at a concentration of 0.7 mg/L.... Approximately two million pregnant women, and over 300,000 exclusively formula-fed babies are exposed to fluoridated water." [p. 76] Appeal Background and Case Timeline For those looking for more details about the EPA’s appeal of the lower court’s ruling, you can read the EPA's appeal brief here. You can click here to read FAN's brief in response to the EPA's appeal . An amicus brief in support of the lower court's original ruling in our favor was also filed by the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Click here to read it . If you missed the March 3rd oral arguments made by both parties before the Court of Appeals’ 3-judge panel, you can watch the 40-minute proceeding here. To learn more about the first phase of the trial, which occurred 6 years ago, please visit our EPA lawsuit webpage . You can also read Paul Connett's daily commentary of each day's proceedings. Those that do review these pages will hopefully see that there is still very much reason to remain optimistic, since the evidence and expert testimony presented was incredibly strong in our favor well before the NTP report confirmed our claims. Please stay tuned for further updates as they happen, and thank you again for your continued support. We promised our supporters that we would fight to the end, no matter how long it took, and we're going to fulfill that promise. U.S. TSCA Fluoride Trial Appeal Ruling: ninth-circuit-fluoride.pdf Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.: Federal Court Strikes Down Landmark Fluoride Ruling on Technicality — ‘Not the Science’ Dr. Bruce Lanphear Dr. Lanphear is a professor at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia and was an expert witness for the plaintiffs in the U.S. TSCA Fluoride Trail. Substack article: The Fluoride Ruling Was Vacated—But the Science Wasn’t Trial Declaration: Lanphear Declaration 05.20.20 Dr. Howard Hu Dr. Hu was also an expert witness for the plaintiffs in the U.S. TSCA Fluoride Trail. Howard HU | University of Toronto, Toronto | U of T | Research profile Dr. Hu's Trial Declaration: EPA-trial-Hu-Declaration.pdf Expert Panel on the Health Effects of Fluoride in Drinking Water Health Canada's Expert Panel on the Health Effects of Fluoride in Drinking Water was referenced in the U.S. TSCA Fluoride Trial. Summary Report : Expert panel meeting on the health effects of fluoride in drinking water: Summary report Dr. David Savitz Dr Savitz, who was a witness for the U.S. EPA, also served on Health Canada's Expert Panel. David Savitz is Professor Emeritus of Epidemiology in the Brown University School of Public Health EPA Paid Expert Witness $137,000 to Testify in Landmark Fluoride Trial • Children's Health Defense "Over nearly three days of testimony, the U.S.EPA's first key witness in the landmark fluoride trial, David Savitz, Ph.D., downplayed the link between fluoride and IQ loss in children. The EPA paid Savitz at least $137,000 to testify. " Systematic Review: Systematic review of epidemiological and toxicological evidence on health effects of fluoride in drinking water September 24, 2024: a US Federal court ruled in favour of Food and Water Watch, et al. in their proceedings against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) After 7 years of legal action against the EPA over the risk posed to the developing brain by the practice of water fluoridation, the United States District Court of the Northern District of California deemed fluoridation an "unreasonable risk" to the health of children. Judge Chen wrote : ... the Court finds Plaintiffs have met their burden in establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that community water fluoridation at 0.7 mg/L presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health under Amended TSCA and that the EPA is thus obliged to take regulatory action in response. During the trial, testimony provided by Philippe Grandjean, Howard Hu co-author of the Bashash (2017 , 2018 ) studies and Bruce Lanphear, co-author of the Green (2019 ) and Till (2020 ) studies. The judge delayed his ruling until he had in his hands the final report of the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) review on fluoride’s neurotoxicity and the Grandjean (et al) Benchmark Dose (BMD) Analysis . EPA appeal of Decision The EPA did not challenge the merits of the court's findings, but focused instead on procedural issues, including EPA's view that the court should have ignored a series of groundbreaking new studies on fluoride and IQ, including the one by their own NTP. EPA argues the court should have ignored this new data because EPA did not have it in its possession back in 2017. Read the brief here. Plaintiffs' response: EPA to protect the public, not to protect the EPA from the public On November 17, 2025, the attorneys for the plaintiffs filed their response, explaining that the purpose of the law at issue (the Toxic Substances Control Act) is "to protect the public, not to protect the EPA from the public." The court was thus amply justified in considering and acting upon the new research, including the NTP report that even EPA conceded was "indisputably central" to reaching a correct decision. Read the brief here. EPA's reply The EPA’s reply brief argues that the district court’s ruling should be reversed because the plaintiffs lacked standing and failed to show concrete, traceable harm from EPA’s actions. EPA contends the court improperly allowed plaintiffs to rely on evidence not included in their original TSCA petition, violating statutory limits on judicial review and administrative exhaustion. Read the brief here . FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS - updated June 19, 2026 About The Water Fluoridation Lawsuit Against the U.S. EPA Below is sworn testimony from Casey Hannan, the then Director of CDC’s Division of Oral Health, regarding early life exposure to fluoride. He acknowledges that the CDC has no data that would establish the safety of fluoride’s effect on the brain, despite a growing body of evidence showing that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin. Fluoride on Trial Play Video Play Video 01:54 U.S. Regulatory Agencies Don't Know Safe vs Toxic Level Of Fluoride FAN attorney Michael Connett asked U.S. regulatory agencies: what is the safe level of fluoride in water - when does the “safe” level turn into a toxic level? Not a single one of these agencies had an answer. If you can’t answer this basic question, you can’t claim fluoride in water is safe. That alone should end water fluoridation. Play Video Play Video 02:39 NSF Unable To Vouch For The Safety Of Fluoridation Chemicals The National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) does not vouch for the safety of fluoridation chemicals because it has not conducted its own risk assessment on fluoride, according to Amanda Phelka of NSF International, who was deposed as part of the ongoing fluoride lawsuit. Play Video Play Video 01:52 CDC Unable To Cite Studies Showing Fluoride Is Effective When Swallowed The Director of The Centers For Disease Control's (CDC) Oral Health Division, Casey Hannan, fumbles during a deposition for the TSCA Fluoride Lawsuit when asked to provide documentation of the studies CDC relies on to support its claim that fluoride reduces tooth decay when ingested. FAN is currently fundraising to meet our 2024 operational budget. Support from those who believe in this mission is crucial to our ability to continue this work. FAN has proven capable of taking on the big battles and winning. Please consider making a donation today. Your donation will go directly to funding our education, advocacy, and legal work. All donations large and small are important to us and are tax-deductible. https://npowebdonation.networkforgood.org/1415005 Play Video Play Video 00:18 CDC: Fluoride's Primary Benefit To Teeth Comes From Topical Contact CDC Admission Under Oath: Fluoride's predominant benefit to teeth comes from topical contact with the outside of the teeth. Source: sworn testimony in the fluoride lawsuit from Casey Hannan, then Director of CDC's Division of Oral Health, regarding early life exposure to fluoride. Play Video Play Video 23:53 "No Safe Level Of Fluoride Exposure During Neurodevelopment" - Toxicologist Kathleen Thiessen An expert for plaintiffs in the fluoride lawsuit, toxicologist Kathleen Thiessen is interviewed by Children's Health Defense for her thoughts on the recent publication of NTP's meta analysis on fluoride neurotoxicity in JAMA Pediatrics. Play Video Play Video 01:15 CDC Oral Health Director: We Have No Safety Data on Fluoride and the Brain "As a rep of CDC to my knowledge we don't have any knowledge about that." - Casey Hannan, CDC oral health director, on whether the CDC has any safety data on fluoride exposures for neurotoxic effects on children that could prove fluoride safe. This video segment was extracted from the full deposition of the CDC by plaintiffs in the TSCA fluoride lawsuit (http://fluoridealert.org/issues/tsca-fluoride-trial/). Help us reach our 2021 fundraising goal by making a tax-deductible donation to FAN today! https://donatenow.networkforgood.org/1415005 Play Video Play Video 29:27 Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo's News Conference On Fluoride In Water Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo spoke in Winter Haven on Nov 22, 20224, saying all communities statewide should stop adding fluoride to drinking water. Play Video Play Video 02:49:31 An Inconvenient Tooth - Fluoride Documentary An Inconvenient Tooth is a documentary film about fluoride. It was released September 6th, 2012 at the City Hall in Portland, Oregon. http://AnInconvenientTooth.org http://Facebook.com/AnInconvenientTooth http://Twitter.com/intooth

Fluoride Free Canada's mission is to educate the public and decision-makers on the urgent need to eliminate artificial water fluoridation across Canada, on both ethical and safety grounds. " Public health has a history of holding on too long. We minimized the risks of lead poisoning. Now we are doing the same with fluoride . The evidence has shifted. The benefits of drinking fluoridated water are smaller than we once believed. The risks—especially to the developing brain—are now impossible to ignore . Anyone who insists otherwise either hasn’t read the new research or chooses not to." -- Bruce Lanphear, MD, MPH , preventive medicine physician and professor at Simon Fraser University, Vancouver. "The science clearly indicates that fluoridation should be ended as soon as possible" -- Toxicologist Steven Gilbert, PhD , author of A Small Dose of Toxicology and director of the Institute of Neurotoxicology & Neurological Disorders ADVOCACY WHO FLUORIDATES & WHO DOESN'T ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS OF FLUORIDE NEW SCIENCE WHO OPPOSES FLUORIDATION FLUORIDE ON TRIAL On September 24, 2024 a US Federal court ruled in favour of Food and Water Watch, et al. in their proceedings against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) After 7 years of legal action against the EPA over the risk posed to the developing brain of water fluoridation, the United States District Court of the Northern District of California deemed fluoridation an "unreasonable risk" to the health of children. Judge Chen wrote : the Court finds Plaintiffs have met their burden in establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that community water fluoridation at 0.7 mg/L presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health under Amended TSCA and that the EPA is thus obliged to take regulatory action in response. LEARN MORE

SCIENCE SHOWS THAT FLUORIDE IS NEITHER SAFE NOR EFFECTIVE All of the studies conducted in North America show that prenatal fluoride exposure, even at relatively low levels, is associated with worse child cognitive development, including lower IQ, more symptoms of ADHD, and worse executive functioning. —Ashley Malin , professor of epidemiology at the University of Florida These items provide compelling evidence that 0.7 ppm is neither optimal nor safe and that any claims to the contrary are ill-founded. Moreover, protests that more study is required before banning fluoridation is a tacit endorsement of human experimentation without individual consent which is medical assault. —Karen F. Spencer, member of Food & Water Watch (plaintiff in the fluoride lawsuit) SEE BIOS: Key scientists associated with Canadian research June 2026 - Remarkable decline and sustained low levels of caries in the Nordic populations—Explanations and implications for public oral health: The authors show that caries levels in Nordic child populations declined from among the highest in the world to among the lowest and sustained at these low levels for half a century by means of a public oral health program largely based on self-applied brushing with fluoride toothpaste, despite continued high levels of sugar consumption. They conclude that that toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste is a robust population strategy that should be promoted as a valid alternative to community water fluoridation for the control of dental caries . May 2026 - Extreme Ecological Fallacy Can Explain Why Study Was Unable to Detect IQ Loss From Fluoridation. : The author, Chris Neurath, argues that major methodological limitations in Warren et al.’s study likely prevented it from detecting potential IQ effects associated with fluoride exposure. He contends that the study misclassified exposure in an extreme case of the ecological fallacy by labeling entire counties as fluoridated based on a single well measurement, despite most residents using low-fluoride water and Community Water Fluoridation not yet existing during participants’ birth years. The resulting exposure misclassification greatly overestimated the numbers supposedly exposed at birth and early life. Additional concerns include minimal prenatal and early childhood fluoride exposure among subjects and reliance on adolescent rather than childhood IQ measurements. The commentary concludes that these limitations substantially weaken the study’s ability to assess neurodevelopmental risk and contrasts its findings with other studies and systematic reviews reporting associations between early-life fluoride exposure and reduced IQ at concentrations relevant to community water fluoridation. December 2025 - Addressing Critiques of the Evidence Linking Fluoride and Children’s IQ: The 2024 National Toxicology Program Monograph concluded—with moderate confidence—that higher fluoride exposure is associated with lower IQ in children. The 2025 meta‑analysis, published in JAMA Pediatrics, quantitatively synthesized over 70 epidemiological studies and likewise reported an inverse association between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ. Many scientific comments were carefully considered and resolved during development and peer review. This is a high‑level summary of key critiques and corresponding responses to help the public, media, and the scientific community better understand the strength and implications of the scientific evidence on fluoride exposures and neurodevelopment and cognition. November 2025 - Global Fluoride Toxicology Landscape: Bibliometric Approaches and Scientific Mapping: This Brazilian research article analyzed research trends in the 100 most-cited articles on fluoride toxicology, a topic widely debated due to the toxic effects associated with levels deemed safe for human exposure.The initial search retrieved 5,983 articles, from which the 100 most-cited were selected, totaling 16,813 citations. The journal Fluoride published the highest number of articles (n = 9), with keywords like “fluoride,” “fluorosis,” “dental fluorosis,” and “oxidative stress” being the most prevalent. India and China accounted for the largest share of publications. The most common study types were observational studies, literature reviews, and in vitro studies. Several studies reported fluoride's effects on dental and skeletal fluorosis, as well as damage to the brain, thyroid, gastrointestinal tract, heart, liver, kidneys, and specific cell types. This study highlights significant concerns regarding excessive fluoride exposure and identifies key research trends and gaps. October 2025 - Urinary fluoride and dental fluorosis in relation to kidney and liver function in adolescents and young adults in the United States: The authors examined the presence of dental fluorosis (DF; reflecting chronic fluoride exposure during tooth development) among adolescents and young adults and urinary fluoride (UF) levels among adolescents in relation to kidney and liver parameters in the United States. Approximately 74% of adolescents and 70% of adults had DF with varying degrees of severity. Each 1 mg/L increase in UF was associated with an approximately 5 mL/min/1.73 m² lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) among adolescents. Higher UF was also associated with higher serum uric acid among adolescents. DF was associated with lower GFR among adolescents and adults. Having DF was negatively associated with blood urea nitrogen among adolescents. The authors concluded that chronic fluoride exposure during tooth development and recent fluoride exposure in adolescence are cross-sectionally associated with a lower rate of kidney filtration and that prospective US-based studies are needed to determine whether these associations are causal. October 2025 - The association of fluoride exposure with bone density and fracture risk: a dose-response meta-analysis: Fluoride has been linked to skeletal and dental fluorosis at high levels, as well as other adverse health endpoints in children and adults. However, the safe range of exposure for bone health remains poorly defined. The authors used existing literature to quantify the dose-response relation between fluoride exposure and bone health, focusing on fracture risk and bone mineral density. They found that among females aged over 50 years, an association of drinking water fluoride with fragility fracture risk started as early as around 0.5 mg/L. October 2025 - Mitochondrial translation impairment-triggered neuroinflammation mediates fluoride-induced cognitive deficits: Fluoride exposure causes toxicity across multiple organs, including the brain, bones, and teeth. This study identifies a new mechanism for fluoride-induced neurotoxicity, which leads to excessive mitochondrial reactive oxygen species production, inducing pyroptotic (inflammatory) cell death, ultimately impairing cognition. Curcumin counteracts these effects by improving mitochondrial function. These findings highlight mitochondrial translation disruption as a key driver of fluoride-related neuroinflammation and cognitive decline, calling for reassessment of current fluoride safety standards. September 2025 - The sugar industry’s efforts to manipulate research on fluoride effectiveness and toxicity: a ninety-year history: Academic research shows that the sugar industry, like the tobacco industry, manipulated science to downplay health risks. Industry-funded scientists dismissed evidence linking sugar to obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and especially tooth decay, instead shifting blame to other factors. Because sugar’s role in tooth decay was undeniable, the industry promoted fluoride as a solution to protect its interests. Recently uncovered documents suggest the industry may have influenced fluoride research both to divert attention from sugar’s harms and later to defend fluoride when its own risks became apparent. June 2025 - Fluoride, Teeth, and Developing Brains: Dental Health in Tension With Environmental Health, Millions Affected: Howard Hu MD, MPH, ScD, and Linda Birnbaum PhD call for a reevaluation of water fluoridation policy—prioritizing topical fluoride methods and reducing prenatal/infant ingestion—to better protect vulnerable populations. They note that while fluoride in water has long been celebrated for preventing tooth decay, recent evidence shows that higher fluoride exposure during pregnancy and early childhood is associated with reductions in children’s IQ (roughly 1.6–2 IQ points per 1 mg/L increase), as well as anxiety and behavioral effects via mechanisms like oxidative stress and thyroid disruption. June 2025 - How the public’s knowledge, attitudes, and practice intersect with scientific evidence about fluoride: Christine Till PhD et al: This study reports mixed public views on community water fluoridation and knowledge gaps surrounding fluoride toothpaste use with children. It presents findings from a survey that assessed knowledge about fluoride, public perceptions of the risks and benefits of community water fluoridation, and fluoride use with young children . Support for fluoridation was primarily driven by confidence in its safety and benefits, while opposition was driven by safety concerns and perceived violations of personal freedom. Participants consistently prioritized the prevention of potential health risks, such as reduced IQ, over modest dental benefits. The survey also revealed that most parents report using more fluoride toothpaste for young children than recommended. April 2025 - Tooth decay prevention and neurodevelopmental disorder risk following childhood fluoride exposure: This longitudinal cohort study examined healthcare data from the Florida Medicaid system for the period 1990–2012. During the first 10 years of life, children who were fluoride-exposed as compared to unexposed were found to be at significantly lower risk for tooth decay, and, separately, at significantly greater risk for autism spectrum disorder, intellectual disability, and specific delays in development . The authors concluded that new risk/benefit analyses of water fluoridation should be undertaken. April 2025 - Health Risks and Benefits of Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and Infancy: This scientific review of the current literature by Christine Till, Philippe Grandjean , E. Angeles Martinez-Mier , Howard Hu and Bruce Lanphear documents the risks to human health of community water fluoridation. It was supported by grants from the National Institute of Environmental Health Science and the National Institutes of Health. January 2025 - Fluoride Exposure and Children’s IQ Scores: This systematic review and meta-analysis of 74 cross-sectional and prospective cohort studies, which included three Canadian studies, found inverse associations between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ scores. The quality of individual studies, also called risk-of-bias, was independently evaluated using the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) Risk of Bias Rating Tool. In the 22 low risk-of-bias studies, the association between fluoride exposure and IQ was inverse, even when exposure was restricted to <1.5 mg/L fluoride in drinking water, as well as <1.5 mg/L fluoride in urine. December 2024 - What’s in the water? Long-run effects of fluoridation on health and economic self-sufficiency In this journal article, Adam Roberts found that children exposed to community water fluoridation from age zero to five are worse off as adults on indices of economic self-sufficiency and physical ability and health. They are also significantly less likely to graduate high school or serve in the military. These findings challenge existing conclusions about safe levels of fluoride exposure. November 2024 - Community Water Fluoridation a Cost–Benefit–Risk Consideration : The authors compared the economic value of dental caries averted by community water fluoridation to the costs of treating the harms of fluoridation. They determined that fluoridation is not cost-effective when the cost of harm (the cost of treating cosmetic dental fluorosis and lower wages due to developmental neurotoxicity) is included. They concluded that all streams of evidence should be considered for policy evaluation, including: lack of individual choice, risks, desired dosage, total exposure, jurisdiction, research quality, environmental justice, ethics, alternatives, and lack of a cost–benefit. October 2024 - Fluoride Ingestion Induces Formation of Unusual Macromolecular Complexes in Gut Lumen Which Retard Absorption of Essential Minerals and Trace Elements by Chelation : This study found that fluoride in the stomach chelates minerals, reducing their absorption. Blood concentrations of essential minerals were significantly lower in fluoride-exposed groups compared to the control, while excretion of essential elements in stool was significantly higher in fluoride-administered groups. October 2024 - Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries : Researchers from the international Cochrane Network reviewed the scientific literature to evaluate the effects of initiation or cessation of community water fluoridation (CWF) on dental caries and they concluded that CWF may lead to a slightly greater reduction in decayed, missing and filled teeth (DMFT) and a slightly greater increase in the proportion of caries‐free children, but with smaller effect sizes than pre‐1975 studies. They found insufficient evidence to determine the effect of cessation of CWF on caries and whether water fluoridation results in a change in disparities in caries according to socioeconomic status. July 2024: PKC-θ is an important driver of fluoride-induced immune imbalance of regulatory T cells/effector T cells – This Chinese study explored the mechanism of fluoride interference in the immune system and the key indicators of fluoride-induced immune damage. It represents the first evidence suggesting that Protein Kinase C-θ (PKC-θ) may be the key to immune imbalance in the body under fluoride exposure. May 2024: Maternal Urinary Fluoride and Child Neurobehavior at Age 36 Months – This study published in JAMA Network Open found that prenatal fluoride exposure may increase the risk of neurobehavioral problems among children living in an optimally fluoridated area in the United States. A 0.68 mg/L increase in maternal urinary fluoride during pregnancy was associated with nearly double the odds of borderline clinical or clinical neurobehavioral problems. February 2024: Grandjean, Hu, Till et al . Dose dependence of prenatal fluoride exposure associations with cognitive performance at school age in three prospective studies - This study merged data from a prospective Odense Child Cohort (OCC) with results from two previous birth cohort studies from Mexico and Canada to characterize fluoride’s dose-effect relationship, and found a statistically significant association between urine-fluoride and IQ. The study concluded that pregnant women and children may need protection against fluoride toxicity. January 2024: Taher, et al . Systematic review of epidemiological and toxicological evidence on health effects of fluoride in drinking water - This Canadian review identified 89 human studies, 199 animal studies, and 10 major in vitro reviews. The weight of evidence on 39 health endpoints was presented. In addition to dental fluorosis, evidence was considered strong for reduction in IQ scores in children, moderate for thyroid dysfunction, weak for kidney dysfunction, and limited for sex hormone disruptions. The authors concluded, "Although outside the scope of the current review, precautionary concerns for potential neurodevelopmental cognitive effects may warrant special consideration in the derivation of the health-based value (HBV) for fluoride in drinking water. " January, 2024: The LOTUS Study – With 6.4 million study subjects, this is the largest fluoride study ever conducted . Its aim was to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of water fluoridatio n for adults and adolescents. Over 10 years, people receiving optimally fluoridated water experienced only a 2% reduction in the number of decayed, missing, and filled teeth, compared to those whose water was not fluoridated. The study found NO meaningful benefit to water fluoridation , nor any compelling evidence that water fluoridation reduced social inequalities in dental health. [ WATCH VIDEO - 1:37 minutes ] January 2024: Fluoride exposure and thyroid hormone levels in pregnancy – This is the first study to investigate sex differences in the association between fluoride exposure and maternal thyroid hormone levels in pregnancy. It found that 1 mg/L increase in urinary fluoride was associated with a 35% increase in thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) among women pregnant with girls. Urinary fluoride concentration is an objective biomarker of short-term fluoride exposure. It allows for more precise estimates of fluoride intake from multiple sources. *The MIREC Study, which started in 2007, is an ongoing study to examine the effects of prenatal exposure to environmental chemicals on the health of pregnant women and their infants. September, 2023 – A study by University of Calgary researchers found “poorer inhibitory control and cognitive flexibility” in preschool children whose mothers were pregnant during times when the water was fluoridated in Calgary, Canada. The authors said their tests measured “executive function deficits [that have been] consistently associated with behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders such as ADHD, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), intellectual disability, and specific learning disorders”. Executive dysfunction disrupts the ability to manage thoughts, emotions, and actions, including the ability to pay attention, solve problems, listen, and multitask. June 2023: Expert panel meeting on the health effects of fluoride in drinking water – Health Canada engaged six experts to consider scientific evidence on fluoride exposure, dental fluorosis, and potential effects on neurocognitive development in children. They were also tasked with providing scientific recommendations for Health Canada to consider in deriving a health-based value for fluoride in drinking water. A supporting statement in the summary report notes that several studies have raised concerns regarding the potential neurocognitive effects of fluoride at community exposure levels and that some of these studies suggest adverse effects at lower exposure levels than those that cause dental fluorosis. The experts stated that the science concerning neurocognitive effects and fluoride is rapidly evolving, and consideration should be given to new studies as they become available. Till et al., April 2023 – Professor Christine Till and PhD student Meaghan Hall found an association between fluoride exposure from tap water and hypothyroidism in pregnancy . They say this latest study may explain an earlier study looking at maternal fluoride exposure in pregnancy and lower IQ in boys. “The findings are concerning because hypothyroidism is a known cause of brain-based disorders in children,” says Till. Hall and Till say they hope that policy makers will consider this new research when evaluating the safety of community water fluoridation. November 2022 – Evaluation of water fluoridation in Cumbria UK: the CATFISH prospective longitudinal cohort study : The aim of the CATFISH (Cumbrian Assessment of Teeth a Fluoride Intervention Study for Health) study was to address the question of whether or not the addition of fluoride to community drinking water, in a contemporary population, led to a reduction in the number of children with caries and, if so, is this reduction cost-effective. It concluded that the prevalence of caries and the impact of water fluoridation was much smaller than previous studies have reported. June, 2021 - Well-designed prospective cohort studies funded by both the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [NIEHS] in the USA as well as Health Canada, have shown a loss of IQ and increased symptoms of ADHD in offspring when pregnant women are exposed to fluoride at doses commonly experienced in fluoridated communities in Canada (Bashash, 2017, 2018 and Green, 2019). The consequences are shocking! According to Dr. Philippe Grandjean, from Harvard University, “Fluoride is causing a greater overall loss of IQ points today than lead, arsenic or mercury” , as detailed in this risk analysis . February, 2021 – Fluoride exposure and duration and quality of sleep in a Canadian population-based sample: This study examined associations between fluoride exposure and sleep outcomes among older adolescents and adults in Canada. It found that fluoride exposure may contribute to sleeping less than the recommended duration. Fluoride from dietary and environmental sources may concentrate in calcium-containing regions of the body such as the pineal gland. The pineal gland synthesizes melatonin, a hormone that regulates the sleep-wake cycle. Till et al., 2020 have shown a large reduction in IQ when children were bottle-fed as babies in communities which were fluoridated, compared with babies who were bottle-fed in non-fluoridated communities. According to Linda Birnbaum, Ph.D., former Director of the U.S. NIEHS (2009-2019) and two leading public health researchers (Bruce Lanphear, MD, MPH, and Christine Till, PhD) who authored two key fluoride-IQ studies (Green, 2019 and Till, 2020), ingestion of fluoride during pregnancy confers no dental benefit to the fetus, so this is a situation where risks are being taken for no proven benefit ( see their editorial published in Environmental Health News, Oct 7 2020 ). An important well-conducted study from Sweden has shown an increased prevalence of hip fracture in post-menopausal women associated with long term exposure to natural fluoride at levels in water in the same range as Canada fluoridates its water [ Helte et. al., 2021 ] . This is very serious because, as you probably know, hip fractures in the elderly are debilitating, costly to treat, lead to a loss of independence and often shortens the life of those impacted. This finding also underlines the fact that fluoride can impact our health over a whole lifetime of exposure.

The FLUORIDE Report Enjoy the archives of newsletters from Fluoride Free Canada #26 Fluoride Report – Quebec to be 99.75% fluoride free by the end of 2024! | Let’s take advice from Gilles Parent, ND.A. November 25th, 2024 – NEW View #25 Fluoride Report – The Long Awaited Decision...We Won! (video message) | Press Release | Key Takeaways from the Court Ruling September 27th, 2024 View #24 Fluoride Report – Presentation to Windsor, ON Council | Setting the Record Straight June 15th, 2024 View #23 Fluoride Report – Dr. Bob Speaks Out | Dr. Bob shares with the Washington Ministry of Health March 17th, 2024 View #22 Fluoride Report – Historical Trial in Progress (Zoom link) | FAN Press Release February 5th, 2024 View #21 Fluoride Report – Help Spread the News—History in the Making | Fluoride on Trial: The Censored Science on Fluoride and Your Health (video) January 14th, 2024 View #20 Fluoride Report – Recap & Current Status of the EPA Fluoride Lawsuit | The Truth from a PhD in Chemistry (video) September 24th, 2023 View Webinar with Christine Till: What's the Fuss About Fluoride? VIEW BUTTON NOW UPDATED WITH THE WEBINAR RECORDING May 8th, 2023 View #19 Fluoride Report – Debunking the Myths - Episode 7 Myth 76: That fluoridation will not materially alter dietary fluori d e intake.. March 15th, 2023 View #18 Fluoride Report – Hope For Canadians: Injunction Underway In Montreal | Help for your Campaign! February 10th, 2023 View Court Rejects EPA's Attempt To Delay January 15th, 2023 View Notice of Fluoridation Hearing January 10th, 2023 View #17 Fluoride Report – Important Law Suit Update | Colgate's Big Lie | CBC Ombudsman Reply December15th, 2022 View #16 Fluoride Report – Fluoride: A Root Cause of Harm to Humans | Fluoride: Source of Chronic Acne November 15th, 2022 View #15 Fluoride Report – Raisin Roulette: Fluoride Found Harmful to Pets & Plants October 15th, 2022 View A Message From Dr. Bob – 2022 Fundraiser October 1st, 2022 View #14 Fluoride Report – Debunking the Myths - Episode 6 Myth #6: That it is possible to control daily fluoride intake for the entire population regardless of all sources of fluoride exposure. August 15th, 2022 View #13 Fluoride Report – Debunking the Myths - Episode 5 Myth #5: That the optimal safe intake in milligrams/per kilogram of weight/per day of fluoride required for dental health is well known. July 15th, 2022 View #12 Fluoride Report – Warning: Sneak Attack: The Greatest Threat to Non-Fluoridated Communities is Here! | What Else is Fluoride Free Canada Up To? June 15th, 2022 View #11 Fluoride Report – Debunking the Myths - Episode 4 Myth #4: That an optimal concentration of 0.7 ppm of fluoride in drinking water will ensure the administration of an optimal and safe daily dose of fluoride for the health of each citizen, dose-adjusted according to their weight, age, gender, state of health, diet, environment and physical activities, regardless of the amount of water consumed. May 15th, 2022 View #10 Fluoride Report – Debunking the Myths - Episode 3 Myth #3: That drinking water is an excellent vehicle for the administration of an appropriate dose of fluoride to prevent cavities, without risk to health. April 15th, 2022 View #9 Fluoride Report – Debunking the Myths - Episode 2 Myth #2: That health authorities know exactly how much fluoride is needed each day to ensure the apatite crystals in dental enamel will be transformed into a sufficient level of fluoroapatite, to make it resistant to tooth decay. March 15th, 2022 View #8 Fluoride Report – Debunking the Myths - Episode 1 Myth #1: That the health authorities know the optimal concentration of fluoride in the enamel of the tooth to make it resistant to decay. February 25th, 2022 View #7 Fluoride Report – Media Bias - We're not taking this lying down! | Fluoride Free Windsor-Essex January 25th, 2022 View #6 Fluoride Report – Can You Count on the Advice of the "Experts"? December 3rd, 2021 View #5 Fluoride Report – The Legality of Fluoridation | What Exactly is the Nature of the Chemicals in Fluoridation? November 20th, 2021 View #4 Fluoride Report – Losses in Calgary and Windsor Don’t Spell Defeat. Be Patient! | Pro-Fluoridation Now Targeting Vancouver, BC November 6th, 2021 View #3 Fluoride Report – Science Lost in Calgary | How Safe Water Calgary was Sabotaged October 22nd, 2021 View #2 Fluoride Report – Results of Vote | Introduction Video | Canadian's Challenged by Biased Media | Who Is Christine Till? October 9th, 2021 View #1 News Alert – Vote to Name this Newsletter | Introduction Video | How Calgary's Crisis Affects You September 24th, 2021 View Update to Trudeau Letter | Call to Share Your Talents September 17th, 2021 View

SEE WHICH COUNTRIES DON'T FLUORIDATE CANADA IS ONE OF THE MOST FLUORIDATED COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD The State of Community Water Fluoridation across Canada According to the Public Health Agency of Canada. 14.4 million Canadians (38.8%) had Community Water Fluoridation in 2022. Canada is one of the most fluoridated countries in the world. In comparison, less than 5.7% of the world's population has their public water supply fluoridated. Most developed nations in the world have rejected fluoridation, including 97% of Western Europe. More than 200 communities across Canada still fluoridate their municipal drinking water. Of these communities, over 100 are located in ONTARIO and include most of the large urban cities such as Toronto, cities within the GTA, Ottawa, Hamilton, and London. The only major urban cities in other provinces that fluoridate their municipal drinking water are Calgary, Edmonton, Halifax, Saskatoon and Winnipeg.

LETTER BY CERTIFIED MAIL TO PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU & ALL CANADIAN PREMIERS September 1st, 2021 RESENT VIA EMAIL TO PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU, CANADIAN PREMIERS & MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT — July 2nd, 2022 ALL CANADIAN SENATORS — December 3rd, 2022 The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau Prime Minister of Canada 80 Wellington Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2 Dear Prime Minister: SUBJECT: Top Canadian scientists concur that the fetal and infant brain can be damaged by fluoridated tap water We are 153 residents (and counting) from many walks of life across our broad nation. We have long believed that the use of the public water supply to deliver fluoride indiscriminately to every man, woman and child in our communities, without control of dose, without consideration of the age or nutritional and health status of the recipients, and without allowing for the individual’s informed consent on the matter, is unacceptable from an ethical point of view. We are writing to you today, because there has been a turn of events which has added great urgency to our concerns. Recent government-funded peer-reviewed science indicates that fluoride has the potential to damage the brains of our children. We are concerned that this alarming new evidence has not triggered any warnings from any health department in the country—especially warnings to pregnant women. We are aware that you do not have jurisdiction over water fluoridation. However, we believe that the issue has become so urgent for the well-being of all Canadian citizens, that your intervention is needed. The following key scientific research forms the basis for our concerns: Well-designed prospective cohort studies funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [NIEHS] in the United States have shown a loss of IQ and increased symptoms of ADHD in offspring when pregnant women are exposed to fluoride at doses commonly experienced in fluoridated communities in Canada : [Bashash et al., 2017 and 2018] and [Green et al., 2019 ] (also funded by Health Canada ). The consequences are shocking! According to Dr. Philippe Grandjean, from Harvard University, “Fluoride is causing a greater overall loss of IQ points today than lead, arsenic or mercury”, as detailed in this risk analysis . In addition, Till et al., 2020 have shown a pronounced reduction in IQ when children were bottle-fed as babies in communities which were fluoridated, compared with babies who were bottle-fed in non-fluoridated communities. According to Linda Birnbaum, Ph.D., former Director of the NIEHS (2009-2019) and two leading public health researchers (Bruce Lanphear, MD, MPH, and Christine Till, PhD) who authored two key fluoride-IQ studies [Green et al., 2019] and [Till et al., 2020], ingestion of fluoride during pregnancy confers no dental benefit to the fetus, so this is a situation where risks are being taken for no proven benefit (see their editorial published in Environmental Health News, Oct 7 2020 ). In addition, an important well-conducted study from Sweden has shown an increased prevalence of hip fracture in post-menopausal women associated with long term exposure to natural fluoride at levels that are in the same range as Canadian water fluoridation rates [Helte et al., 2021 ]. This is very serious because, as you probably know, hip fractures in the elderly are debilitating, costly to treat, lead to a loss of independence and often shorten the life of those impacted. This finding also underlines the fact that fluoride can impact our health over a lifetime of exposure. More evidence of harm, along with supporting documentation for all the studies cited in this letter, can be accessed here . Note: There are strong Canadian connections with all the neurotoxicity studies we have cited: Christine Till teaches at York University; Bruce Lanphear (co-author of the Green and Till studies) teaches at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver; and Morteza Bashash did his research at the University of Toronto. We would also like to make you aware that the U.S.-based group Food and Water Watch, is among several groups and individuals that have instigated a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) seeking a ban on the deliberate addition of fluoride to the public drinking water on the grounds that it poses an unreasonable risk to the developing brains of America’s children. The case was heard in June 2020 and the judge has delayed his ruling, until the review of fluoride’s neurotoxicity by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) and Grandjean’s Benchmark Dose (BMD) analysis have been published. Grandjean, along with Bruce Lanphear and Howard Hu, acted as expert witnesses in this case. With all these latest alarming scientific studies, we urge you to exercise bold leadership and work with all the Canadian Premiers to encourage their Ministers of Health to take the following steps: Warn pregnant women to avoid ingesting fluoride and warn parents not to use fluoridated water to make up infant formula. Pause any further promotion of water fluoridation. Unless they can provide convincing counter-evidence of comparable quality to the findings discussed above, institute a total ban on this practice. (We would note that fluoridation has been virtually ended in both Quebec and British Columbia, with no validated scientific reports of any deterioration in tooth care in either province.) Focus resources on ways of fighting tooth decay without forcing the population to ingest fluoride via the water supply, without their informed consent. Most countries (including 97% of Europe) have successfully fought tooth decay without fluoridating the water supply. We recognize that there is a clear need to focus on dental care for children from low-income families, but we must do so without undermining their mental development. Some living in inner cities are already burdened with excessive lead exposure. Federal, provincial and local governments need to provide better access to preventive dental care and early education for better diet and dental hygiene for all our children. The latter approach has proven very successful and cost-effective in low-income families in non-fluoridated Scotland (see the ChildSmile program ). In summary, Mr. Prime Minister, we sincerely hope that with your bold intervention on behalf of all our citizens, Canada’s Federal and Provincial Health Ministers will acknowledge the strong scientific evidence of fluoride’s neurotoxicity (and other ill health effects) and put the health of our people above defending what appears to be a well-intended but clearly outdated practice of water fluoridation. This would not be the first time that an entrenched medical or dental practice has had to give way to advances in scientific understanding of unexpected side effects. Sincerely, Concerned Canadian Citizens Copies to Canadian Premiers

Help Us $ave Your Children's Brains from Fluoride's Neurotoxicity We volunteer our time and talents for Fluoride Free Canada, but funds are required for operating costs. DONATION METHODS We offer two different donation methods: Use your online banking to eTransfer directly to info@fluoridefreecanada.ca Donate via Zeffy , an online platform that charges us zero transaction fees. We are grateful for all donations, no matter how big or small.

KEY SCIENTISTS ASSOCIATED WITH CANADIAN RESEARCH MORTEZA BASHASH Dr. Bashash specializes in environmental and occupational health, cancer epidemiology, and molecular epidemiology. He obtained his BSc and MS in Public Health/Occupational Health from Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Dr. Bashash pursued his PhD from the Interdisciplinary Oncology Program at the University of British Columbia in collaboration with BC Cancer, with a focus on the Molecular Epidemiology of Cancer survival. After completing his PhD, he underwent post-doctoral training at the University of Toronto's Dalla Lana School of Public Health and the BC Cancer Research Centre . He has held academic positions at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, and is currently an adjunct faculty at Toronto Metropolitan University and The University of Southern California's Keck School of Medicine . LINDA BIRNBAUM Dr. Birnbaum, Ph.D., D.A.B.T., A.T.S, was director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) of the National Institutes of Health, and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) from 2009 to 2019 . As NIEHS and NTP director, Birnbaum oversaw a budget of more than $740 million that funds biomedical research to discover how the environment influences human health and disease. A board certified toxicologist, Birnbaum served as a federal scientist for 40 years. Prior to her appointment as NIEHS and NTP director in 2009, she spent 19 years at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), where she directed the largest division focusing on environmental health research. RIVKA GREEN Dr. Green Ph.D. is a clinical neuropsychologist who has worked at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto since 2017. She earned her Ph.D. in Clinical / Developmental Neuropsychology at York University, working in the Christine Till Lab. HOWARD HU Dr. Hu is an American physician-scientist, internist, and specialist in preventive medicine and environmental health. He is currently the Flora L. Thornton Chair and Professor of Population and Public Health Sciences at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California. He previously taught at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, University of Michigan School of Public Health, and University of Toronto , where he served as founding dean of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health . BRUCE LANPHEAR Dr. Lanphear MD MPH is a Professor of Health Sciences at Simon Fraser University . He is currently principal investigator for a study examining fetal and early childhood exposures to prevalent environmental neurotoxins including lead, pesticides, mercury, alcohol, PCB's and environmental tobacco smoke. A component of the study is the investigation of the contribution of residential hazards and residential injuries to children's health. This project recently received funding to follow the original birth cohort, until the children are five years of age. This will allow follow-up for determining the efficacy of lead hazard controls on children's blood lead levels and their risk for learning and behavioral problems. Dr. Lanphear has extensive experience conducting community-based trials, including lead poisoning prevention, epidemiology of asthma, prevention of exposure to tobacco smoke and measurement of lead and allergens in housing. ASHLEY MALIN Dr. Malin is the founder and director of the Fluoride, Aluminum, Brain, and Behavior (FABB) Lab and is trained as a clinical psychologist. Her interest in fluoride began after reading animal research suggesting that early-life exposure to fluoridation chemicals may contribute to symptoms of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). She has published widely on the health impacts of fluoride exposure, including effects on sleep, thyroid function, kidney and liver health, women’s reproductive health, and health disparities. In 2021, she received an NIH/NIEHS K99/R00 Pathway to Independence Award to study early-life fluoride exposure and its links to neurodevelopment and sleep patterns in children and adolescents in the United States and Canada. She also conducts complementary research on aluminum exposure in pregnant women in the U.S. and has a broader interest in the role of nutrition in child health outcomes. CHRISTINE TILL Dr. Till is a Canadian neuroscientist and professor at Toronto's York University . She is well-known for her research in the fields of cognitive neuroscience and psychology, particularly her work on the brain and its relationship to memory, attention, and learning processes. One of her notable areas of research is studying how various factors—such as development, aging, and neurological disorders—can affect cognitive functions. She has also focused on understanding how the brain adapts to different environments and the ways in which cognitive functions might be improved or preserved over time. Below, Christine Till gives an in-depth look at the detail of her studies on fluoride and concludes with: "A lot has changed since the 1940s when water fluoridation was first introduced. We now have topical fluorides like toothpaste, and we know more about how fluoride works. There will always be questions that need answers, but now we have mounting scientific evidence showing a consistent pattern of lower IQ associated with early-life exposure to fluoride. The question becomes: How much more information is needed before we raise concerns...? Failure to act could amount to enormous costs at the population level." "I have been able to view this excellent presentation of a review of the Fluoride-IQ literature from the author of some of the key studies. For any one with an open mind, a reasonable background in science or just plain common sense this should be the final word on this debate. No community should deliberately put this neurotoxic substance into the public drinking water." — Paul Connett, PhD co-author of The Case Against Fluoride (Chelsea Green , 2010) and science advisor to Fluoride Free Canada.

CPSO COMPLAINT 1) Official Complaint to The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario Regarding a Physicians Presentation to the City of Windsor Council on Monday December 17 2018 2) Response to CPSO re Preliminary Decision re Complaint 1110270 - December 5 2019 3) CPSO Committee Final Decision re Comprehensive Complaint Against Dr Ahmed Received February 12 2020

When municipalities fluoridate their tap water, it denies Canadians the right to choose whether to drink it, shower in it or cook with it. Fluoride Free Canada supports efforts across Canada to end this outdated practice. We help municipalities and individuals by providing them with the best science that indicates that this practice is harmful to health, especially the dangers it poses to the brains of our children and the bones of the elderly. CONTACT US Email us at info@fluoridefreecanada.ca Stay up to date on fluoridation related news, advocacy, science, and actions you can take locally to help end this practice. SIGN UP FOR EMAIL ALERTS AND UPDATES Take action in your community. Sign up for our email list and join the conversation! GET UPDATES Be the first to hear about our latest action alerts and events, and stay in the loop on the work our organization is doing every day with the support of people like you. We will never share your email address with anyone, and you can unsubscribe any time. EMAIL FIRST NAME LAST NAME CITY PROVINCE / STATE Preferred Newsletter language: * English French Yes, sign me up! * – Required field To play, press and hold the enter key. To stop, release the enter key. The Fluoride Action Network (FAN) website has excellent information on Canadian activity: CANADIAN GOVERNMENT REPORTS CANADIAN STUDIES CANADIAN NEWS ARTICLES