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. All Videos Play Video Play Video 31:17 Final Court Ruling: Fluoride Is Unreasonably Risky with Michael Connett, Esq. Final Court Ruling: Fluoride Is Unreasonably Risky with Michael Connett, Esq. The court rules that fluoridation at .7ppm poses an unreasonable risk to children’s IQ and mandates EPA action with Michael Connett, Esq. #FluorideBan #CourtRuling #ChildIQ #EPAReform 00:00 EPA Acknowledges Neurotoxicity Near 2ppm 03:18 EPA Dodges Defining a Clear Hazard Threshold 04:26 Court Rules Fluoridation Poses Unreasonable IQ Risk 06:08 Federal Judge: Fluoride Is a Neurotoxic Risk to Children 07:05 States Begin Ending Fluoridation Programs Post-Ruling 08:11 EPA Must Now Address Fluoride’s Risk via Rulemaking 10:20 EPA Could Ban Fluoridation Nationally 10:50 Fluoride Linked to More Than Just IQ Reduction 12:11 No Difference in Cavities Despite Fluoridation 13:36 U.S. Lacks IQ-Fluoride Studies, But Global Data Shows Clear Harm 14:51 Fluoride Exposure Linked to 7-Point Average IQ Drop 16:27 Toothpaste Is a Safer Fluoride Delivery Option—With Caveats 18:36 Industrial and Political Origins of Fluoridation 20:23 Historical Context of Fluoridation Policy and Propaganda 21:27 Evidence for Topical vs. Water-Based Fluoride 22:48 Only Reverse Osmosis and Distillation Remove Fluoride 25:21 RFK Jr. Can Influence Policy but Not Ban Fluoride 27:41 Other Drinking Water Risks: Arsenic, Lead, PFAS 29:24 Pharmaceutical Residue in Water Is a Growing Concern 30:44 Chlorine Linked to Bladder Cancer but Still Offers Public Safety Benefits Away in a manger: Track 1218522 – Monetization ID 91WCLJI5IB0TJXUS. Social Media Channels Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TRTAHConference Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/therealtruthabouthealth/ Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/c/TheRealTruthAboutHealth Play Video Play Video 02:22 WUC Admin Advise Source of Fluoride in Drinking Water In this video Windsor Utilities Commission's Chief Operating Officer, John Stuart, answers Councillor Dilkens' question - does the fluoride come from the smoke stack scrubbers of factories? YES confirms the WUC admin. But Dr. Heimann has stated otherwise to the Tecumseh, Amherstburg and Lasalle council members. Far too often Public Health and Dental Health Authorities claim fluoride is naturally occurring when trying to convince municipalities to buy in to artificial water fluoridation. But naturally occurring calcium fluoride is NOT what is used in water fluoridation, calcium fluoride is present in the water before the addition of hydrofluorosilicic acid. Hydrofluorosilicic Acid is a waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry - it is classified as HAZARDOUS WASTE before it is tanked untreated and shipped to municipalities as a "fluoridating agent". One has to wonder why Public Health makes such misleading statements about the source of the fluoride used in water fluoridation. For more information on the actual product, hydrofluorosilicic acid, and where it comes from visit here: http://cof-cof.ca/hydrofluorosilicic-acid-origins/ And see Fluoride Free Windsor's article about the product here: http://fluoridefreewindsor.com/2011/11/19/get-to-know-your-tooth-medicine/ Thank you Councillor Dilkens for asking this question and getting a straight answer from WUC administration!! 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 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 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 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 Play Video Play Video 10:25:31 Regina Special City Council | May 2, 2025 | AccessNow TV Subscribe: youtube.com/channel/UCiKb9tDSlDxSgRYRHHrhrQQ?sub_confirmation=1 Stay Connected X: https://twitter.com/AccessNowSports Instagram: https://instagram.com/myaccessca Facebook: https://facebook.com/MyAccessCA PODCASTS The Fluoride Action Network's Science Research Director, Chris Neurath, details his work uncovering documents that show how the sugar industry manipulated science and worked secretly behind the scenes to support community fluoridation programs despite evidence of fluoride's neurotoxicity and links to other serious health impacts. Sharyl Attkisson speaks with Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo of Florida, which has now banned water fluoridation. May 6, 2025: Sovereign Collective Podcast Dr. Bob discusses his initial discovery of the potential harms of fluoride and his efforts to remove it from Calgary’s water. He covers the toxicity of hexafluorosilicic acid, the legal and ethical implications of mass medication, the scientific studies showing minimal benefits and significant risks, including neurotoxicity, as well as the political and financial forces driving fluoridation. Apr 6, 2025: Truth Over Spin: Pam Killeen and Dr. Paul Connett discuss the ongoing controversy surrounding water fluoridation, highlighting recent scientific findings, legal battles, and the historical context of fluoride use in public health. For more information visit ⁠www.pamkilleen.com⁠ or ⁠www.truthoverspin.com⁠ Episode 2 Artificial Water Fluoridation Dr Bob starts by highlighting the potential toxic effects of fluoride, comparing it to lead and arsenic. Dr. Bob delves into the wide range of potential consequences linked to fluoride exposure, such as increased rates of ADHD, decreased IQ in children, thyroid problems, kidney toxicity, and weakened bones. March 24, 2025: Huberman's guest is board-certified dentist Dr. Stacy Whitman, DMD. Show notes at: How to Improve Your Teeth & Oral Microbiome for Brain & Body Health | Dr. Staci Whitman - Huberman Lab Dr. Bob was a proponent for water fluoridation until activists had him look at a study back in 1998. He has been trying to expose the lies for 25 years. PRESENTATIONS TO GOVERNMENT BODIES Use this content to formulate your own presentation! UK Parliament Dec/2021 Result: Still outstanding The Dutch Rejection of Water Fluoridation - Rick North Calgary, AB 2011 Result: Rejected Fluoridation (Vote 10-3) Orillia, ON 2012 Result: Rejected Fluoridation Windsor, ON 2012 Result: Rejected Fluoridation (Unfortunately, fluoridation reintroduced in 2022) 2024 Presentation Highlights Latest Science Windsor, ON 2024 Regina SK: May 2, 2025 Reconsideration vote to postpone the introduction of fluoride to Regina's water supply until there is conclusive evidence that there are no significant neurotoxic effects or other bodily harms, to safeguard the health of the community and particularly that of the community's children. Ultimately, the motion was defeated and plans to introduce fluoride will proceed. Link to meeting agenda: City Council - Special - May 2, 2025 9:00 AM

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 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

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. 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

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

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

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.

MISSION 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. VISION For Canada to be a country in which scientific integrity and sound medical ethics underpin every public health policy and one in which we can have confidence in public pronouncements from all health officials, especially community-based Medical Officers of Health. That has not been the case with water fluoridation. Learn more > How did we get here? Fluoride Free Canada is registered as a Canadian not-for-profit organization. We support Canadians in their efforts to educate local elected decision makers about the health risks of municipal tap water fluoridation. Send us a message to let us know you support our efforts and wish to be added to this growing list.

FACT SHEET – TSCA WATER FLUORIDATION LAWSUIT WHAT: TSCA stands for the Toxic Substances Control Act, which authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prohibit a chemical that presents an unreasonable risk to the general public or susceptible subpopulations. A group of non-profits and individuals petitioned the EPA in 2016 to end the addition of fluoridation chemicals into drinking water based on health risks. The EPA rejected the petition. In response, the groups sued the EPA in 2017: Food and Water Watch et al vs Environmental Protection Agency. A seven-day trial was held in June 2020 but the Court has yet to make a ruling. See the full timeline and details pertaining to the lawsuit. WHY: The plaintiffs are basing their case on fluoride’s neurotoxicity (brain damage), focusing on the link found in dozens of studies between higher-ingested fluoride levels and lower IQs in children. Evidence also links higher-ingested fluoride levels to higher attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) rates. There is a scientific consensus that ingested fluoride is neurotoxic. The plaintiffs argue it can be neurotoxic to children at levels recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service to fluoridate water at 0.7 parts per million (ppm). The EPA denies that claim. WHO: The plaintiffs are three non-profit organizations, Food and Water Watch, Fluoride Action Network and Moms Against Fluoridation, plus three individuals. The defendant is the EPA. The U.S. Department of Justice is leading its case. Edward Chen is the U.S. district judge hearing the case. The lead attorneys are Michael Connett for the plaintiffs and Brandon Adkins for the defendants. WHERE: The case is being held in federal court in the Northern District of California in San Francisco. Its hearings, previous trial and future trial have been/will be available to the public live on Zoom. WHEN: Since the June 2020 trial, Judge Chen has waited for a systematic review on fluoride’s neurotoxicity to be completed by the National Toxicology Program (NTP). The final report was scheduled to be released on May 18, 2022, when it was blocked days before publication by the Department of Health and Human Services. Following a January 12, 2023 hearing, the judge rejected EPA’s request for further delays. The review was posted on NTP’s website March 15, 2023. On May 11, 2023, NTP’s Board of Scientific Counselors held a public meeting on NTP’s responses to outside reviews of its report. The next steps in its release have yet to be announced by NTP director Rick Woychik.

QUEBEC 99.75% FLUORIDE FREE In October, 2024 the following article was sent to each councillor in Pointe-Claire, Dorval, Baie d’Urfe, Dollard-des-Ormeaux and Montreal. RECENT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH RAISES MULTIPLE RED FLAGS ON THE SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF FLUORIDATION For more than 75 years, drinking water fluoridation has been presented to us by health authorities, including Health Canada and the provincial health ministries, as one of the ten great public health achievements, and that it is absolutely safe and effective. Yet in 2000, the NHS Center for Reviews and Dissemination literature review titled A Systematic Review of Public Water Fluoridation (McDonagh et al.) showed just 39 studies on the effectiveness, and 176 on the safety of fluoridation – far fewer than the often-quoted “thousand studies” supporting water fluoridation. Additionally, according to the authors, the majority of these studies were of low quality. Science had not had the last word on this either: a mounting number of recent scientific studies and reviews have raised red flags that seriously call into question both the safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation. Municipal councils that relied in good faith on health authorities to fluoridate their drinking water now face a modern-day dilemma. Recent science has demonstrated that fluoride and artificial water fluoridation are neurotoxic, especially to babies and young children. Evidence of damage to other organs and systems in the human body continues to accumulate, while the evidence for the ineffectiveness of the antiquated practice of water fluoridation is now overwhelming. In view of its negative impact on children intelligence quotient (IQ), recent fluoride research has now transformed what used to be considered one of the ten great public health achievements, into one of the worst public health mistakes. Please consider this abbreviated list of major red flags below, and then ask yourself: Can we, in good faith, ethically and morally, continue with this now proven harmful, risky and ineffective practice? RED FLAGS ABOUT THE INEFFECTIVENESS OF FLUORIDATION One particularly erroneous claim is that fluoridation reduces tooth decay by 25%. This statistic has been circulating for many decades, but is no longer supported by current research. The October 2024 Cochrane Collaboration Systematic Review , the 2024 LOTUS Retrospective Cohort Study , conducted over 10 years and involving more than 6 million participants, and the 2022 CATFISH prospective Longitudinal Cohort Study , all show that the effectiveness of fluoridation in reducing dental caries is closer to 2% and certainly less than 4%. Moreover, contrary to claims, disadvantaged populations do not benefit more than the rich. RED FLAGS ABOUT FLUORIDATION NEUROTOXICITY The U.S. Northern District of California Federal Court : After a seven-year science-based lawsuit, ruled that fluoridation "poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children" and ordered the EPA to take measures to eliminate this risk. (Sept. 25, 2024) The National Toxicology Program (NTP) : The USA's highest-level scientific review committee concluded higher water fluoride concentrations "are consistently associated with lower IQ in children" . The NTP cited that 18 of the 19 highest quality studies link higher fluoride with lower IQs, several at levels in fluoridated water. (August 21, 2024) Dr. Linda Birnbaum, PhD, retired NTP director : "It is time to protect kids' developing brains from fluoride". (Environmental Health News, 10/7/20) Dr. Dimitri Christakis, MD , pediatrician, editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Pediatrics: "I would not have my wife drink fluoridated water if she were pregnant". (Washington Post, 8/20/19) Dr. Hardy Limeback, PhD, DDS , former president of the Canadian Association of Dental Research and former Head of Preventative Dentistry at the University of Toronto and one of twelve experts on the US National Research Council's fluoride report (2006): "The evidence that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming". (Personal communication 9/27/24) American Academy of Environmental Medicine : "Fluoridation has been called one of the ten great public health achievements. Fluoridation is more likely one of the ten most dangerous public health practices in this country and in the world" . (website accessed 10/2/24) Food and Water Watch : "Today's [federal court] ruling represents an important acknowledgement of a large and growing body of science indicating serious human health risks associated with fluoridated drinking water" . (9/25/24, website accessed 10/2/24) RED FLAG ON THE CONFUSION BY AUTHORITIES ON THE FLUORIDE DOSE The absence of control of the dose administered is a very obvious flaw in science of the concept of fluoridation. Health authorities have established the "optimum fluoride concentration" in drinking water at 0.7 mg/liter, as if this concentration determines the dose (milligrams per day) consumed by each individual of a fluoridated community. In fact, the dose of a drug or nutrient dissolved in a liquid is not determined by the concentration alone, but by two parameters: both the concentration, and the quantity of liquid consumed. As there is great variability in both the quantity of water consumed, as well as water used for food preparation, there is great variability in the dose of fluoride consumed from one individual to another. In nutrition, pharmacology and toxicology, it is also necessary to take into account the weight of the subject. It is therefore necessary to measure the intake in milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/d). In addition to fluoridated water, there are other sources of fluoride exposure, including tea and dental hygiene products, both of which often contain high concentrations of fluoride. Therefore, depending on what they eat and drink, many individuals may be inadvertently overexposed to fluoride, with deleterious effects on their health. RED FLAG ON LEGAL CLASSIFICATION OF FLUORIDATION PRODUCTS The legal classification of a substance determines its use and under which government authority that substance will be approved and regulated. Fluoridation chemicals are added primarily to prevent tooth decay by changing the composition of the tooth's enamel. The sole objective of fluoridation is therefore therapeutic. Products with a therapeutic use and claim are defined in the Food and Drugs Act as having to necessarily and legally belong either to the legal classification of drugs or natural health products . Such products should then be approved and regulated as such by Health Canada. Surprisingly, this is not the case for fluorides. Health authorities instead compare fluorides added to drinking water as belonging to the legal classification of nutrients for food fortification , like vitamin D added to milk or iron added to flour. Nutrients for food fortification also fall under Health Canada’s jurisdiction. Yet, you may be surprised to learn that Health Canada does not regulate fluoridation chemicals as sources of fluoride for the fortification of drinking water. Asked to explain itself through the process of a petition (299, 299B and 299C) to the Commissioner of the Environment at the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, Health Canada affirmed that it does not approve or regulate chemicals used to fluoridation because they are simple water treatment products and water treatment products fall under provincial jurisdiction. Fluorides used for water fluoridation are therefore not approved for the therapeutic use of preventing dental caries. Environment Canada, the federal ministry that manages toxic and hazardous materials, classifies and controls fluoridation chemicals under the legal classification of hazardous and corrosive products . It has also set the toxic threshold of fluoride concentration at 0.12 ppm for the protection of fauna and flora in fresh soft water, while the concentration of effluent from a municipality is 3 to 4 times higher. Note that the level of fluoridated drinking water is 0.70 ppm, 6 times the toxic threshold for this environment. Already the concentration of the water in the St. Lawrence River is around 0.15 ppm, exceeding the critical threshold standard of 0.12 ppm. So what is the legal classification of fluoride that municipal councils have decided to put in our water? Do municipalities add a substance legally classified as a water treatment product or as a hazardous and toxic substance for the purpose of preventing tooth decay among their citizens? RED FLAGS ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF FLUORIDATION The Food and Drugs Act does not allow: A therapeutic role and claim to be assigned to a substance not approved and not regulated by Health Canada; Administration of a substance with a therapeutic objectiveto humans, if it is not manufactured, packaged, transported and stored under the required sanitary conditions for a drug or for a source of a nutrient for fortification by Health Canada. Canadian provincial governments require that fluoridation products meet the standard established by the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF). NSF certification requires that toxicology tests demonstrating safety be carried out by the NSF. Yet, these tests have not been carried out by the NSF or other government agencies. Fluoridation products are therefore not compliant as required for certification, and do not meet the requirements of the law. RED FLAGS ABOUT THE MEDICAL ETHICS OF FLUORIDATION Administering a substance legally classified as a water treatment product or as a toxic and dangerous substance to an entire population for therapeutic purposes is a complete breach of medical ethics. This breach of medical ethics is exacerbated when the so-called therapeutic substance is not even approved and regulated by Health Canada. It is unethical to fail to inform each person subjected to a therapeutic treatment, of the exact real and legal nature of the product, its unsanitary nature and its health risks. Medical ethics does not tolerate administering said substance without obtaining a consent from the subject. (Respect also to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) It is medically unethical not to assess the age, weight, sex, state of health and other needs of each subject before administering a random dose of a remedy – random, since the quantity of water consumed cannot be controlled. During treatment, medical ethics also requires individual and regular medical monitoring to evaluate the positive or negative effects of the treatment, to ensure the removal of the treatment if deleterious effects occur. Municipal water fluoridation does not offer a fair and affordable way to opt out of treatment, and subjects would still need to be informed of the deleterious effects of fluoridation in order to stop consuming fluoridated water. When water is fluoridated at “optimal concentrations”, municipalities, health authorities, attending physicians, dentists and individuals cannot possibly know the dose of fluoride to which people are exposed, or what deleterious effects it may have to human health. The effectiveness and safety of fluoridation was, until now, a dogma that even science had no right to challenge. With the recent studies and scientific reviews cited above, isn't it time to review fluoridation? WHICH AUTHORITIES CAN BE TRUSTED TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION ABOUT FLUORIDATION? If all the health authorities you rely on have not yet informed you of all of these troubling red flags highlighted above, there is a real problem. It is impossible to make an informed policy decision regarding fluoridation without knowing the facts. How is it that you have not yet been made aware of these red flags? Many of them are obvious and only require common sense. Any member of a municipal council has this competence. As many of the scientific studies have been published in the last few years, it may be difficult to draw a clear conclusion at first glance in order to make a decision about the future of water fluoridation policy. Often this requires extensive analysis and revision by groups of experts, experts who are not biased or who are willing to modify their prejudices in the face of evidence. Faced with the slow public reactions of Canadian health authorities to new scientific revelations on fluoride, we can assume they do not have the necessary skills to carry out a serious analysis, the experts on fluoride are rare, or they are currently seeking to defend, at the cost of the health of your community, a questionable public health measure of which they have become the greatest promoters and instigators. Admitting a mistake is not easy! THE POWER OF MUNICIPALITIES IN MATTERS OF FLUORIDATION Since it is the municipalities that make the decision to fluoridate drinking water, they bear full responsibility for the safety of fluoridation because they are the ones who decide so, by resolution. Contrary to the impression you may have been given, no other superior government in Canada has agreed to take legal responsibility for fluoridation. Higher levels of governments have delegated legal and political responsibility for fluoridation to municipalities; despite the fact that municipalities have neither the competence to scientifically evaluate its merits, nor the leisure to bear the blame and financial burden, in the event of prosecution for damages. The Decision of the Federal Court of the Northern District of California, following a seven-year trial and the review of studies on the effect of fluoride on the brain, concluded that fluoride is neurotoxic. It would be difficult to find a better-informed contrary opinion. Other red flags, such as studies demonstrating the ineffectiveness of fluoridation and the legal and ethical aspects of fluoridation, weigh even more heavily in the balance of reasons supporting ending water fluoridation, even if only as a precautionary principle. Municipalities do not have to ask for permission to put an end to fluoridation, as this power already belongs to them. We can meet with you at your convenience to discuss this critical and urgent matter. As the file is complex, we can take the time to sit down with you, respectfully, in order to explore the subject in more depth, to provide you with the most objective information possible to enable an informed decision. We can also provide you with references to many additional scientific studies and reviews. Faced with the seriousness of recent scientific discoveries, for the sake of our children, the least you can do is to impose a moratorium on water fluoridation , and to provide clear warnings to pregnant women and those with young children , until the opinion of experts on both sides can be heard. Thank you for your time and attention on this important and urgent matter. Robert C Dickson MD, CCFP, FCFP FOUNDER Safe Water Calgary www.safewatercalgary.com CHAIR, Fluoride Free Canada www.fluoridefreecanada.ca Board member of ABC (Associacion Buen Commune, parent organization of Project Ixcanaan)www.ixcanaan.com Gilles Parent, ND.A. Founding member of Fluoride Free Canada www.fluoridefreecanada.ca/fr Coauthor with M. Pierre Jean Morin, Ph.D. in experimental medicine and attorney John Remington Graham, of La fluoration : autopsie d’une erreur scientifique, 2005 and Fluoridation : Autopsy of a Scientific Error, 2010 Expert advisor on fluoridation at Eau Secours

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