Search Results

WHO FLUORIDATES AND WHO DOESN'T? UNFLUORIDATED COUNTRIES FLUORIDATED COUNTRIES Flags LEARN MORE > Statements from European Authorities The late Dr. Hans Moolenburgh of the Netherlands:

IS FLUORIDE SAFE & EFFECTIVE? Robert C Dickson MD, CCFP, FCFP "I am a medical doctor, and I strongly oppose artificial water fluoridation. It is said that if a lie or mistruth is repeated often enough, it will finally be accepted as true. Read this expert report by Dr. Bruce Lanphear MD MPH , a Canadian scientist, MD and researcher. It was written for the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (CPSA) and received by Dr. Dickson's legal team at Bennett Jones in Calgary, Alberta, in October 2024. The report is large print, double spaced and very readable It is 27 pages long, and includes 7 pages of links and scientific verification. Dr. Bruce Lanphear was key to the worldwide movement to ban lead from our waters and systems. He also led pivotal work on water fluoridation through the Health Canada MIREC (Maternal Infant Research on Environmental Chemicals) cohort. This research, which was performed with Dr. Christine Till, Dr. Rivka Green and Dr. Ashley Malin FRP, York University in Ontario, have produced some of the best research ever seen in the 80+ years of water fluoridation, and is published in peer reviewed journals such as JAMA Pediatrics. This culminated in a major CPSA Tribunal Hearing on January 27, 2025, in which Dr. Dickson won on 3 of the 4 charges—the science of water fluoridation, free speech and practicing within the scope of his medical training— and pleaded guilty for one charge of professional misconduct—calling out medical and dental professionals when they were not telling the truth. Dr. Bob Dickson, Chair of Fluoride Free Canada In this 2024 article , Dr. Dickson summarizes the history and challenges of water fluoridation and why it is NOT safe. WHEN DID FLUORIDATION START? In 1945, Grand Rapids, Michigan, became the first community in the world to add fluoride to tap water, on the premise that it would prevent tooth decay. The type of fluoride commonly found in many rocks and the source of the naturally occurring fluoride ion in water supplies is calcium fluoride. The three main fluoride compounds generally used to fluoridate municipal water are industry byproducts: sodium fluoride, hydrofluorosilicic acid (hexafluorosilicic acid) and sodium silicofluoride. The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson HEXAFLUOROSILICIC ACID (Hydrofluorosilicic Acid) Raw Materials, Manufacture, Toxicity and Public Health Concerns as an Active Ingredient in the Fluoridation of Drinking Water [September 2012] A MUST READ WHAT DIFFICULTIES AROSE? The public water supply is being used to deliver fluoride indiscriminately to every man, woman and child in our communities: Without control of dose (infants and adults alike get the same dose). Without consideration of the age, or nutritional and health status of the recipient (for example, those with a weak kidney or liver can be impacted). Without allowing for the individual’s informed consent on the matter. Dental fluorosis and skeletal weakness Children develop dental fluorosis by ingesting too much fluoride between 0 and 8 years of age. It doesn't matter if the fluoride comes from foods and drinks due to pesticides or processing, or toothpaste, or fluoridated water etc. Those with dental fluorosis have higher bone fractures as well as higher rates of learning disabilities. Thyroid issues : Thyroid medication is the third most prescribed medication to Canadian women, because fluoride is displacing iodine on the cell's receptors. Study shows that adults living in Canada who have moderate-to-severe iodine deficiencies and higher levels of urinary fluoride may be at an increased risk for underactive thyroid gland activity. Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) Paul Connett interviews Dr. A. K. Susheela from India, who discusses how ingesting fluoride irritates the stomach lining, leading to IBS. She discovered that from the moment you eliminate fluoride, the gastrointestinal mucosa and the microvilli will regenerate within 10-12 days. Canada has one of the highest prevalence of IBS in the world – estimated 18% vs. 11% globally. (Lovell et al. 2012 ). Now in Canada, ADHD medication is the number one prescribed medication to boys and girls 6 to 14 years of age and the second most prescribed medication to males between the ages of 15 to 24, according to a June, 2014 Statistics Canada report . But since 2017, the government-funded peer-reviewed science indicates that fluoride has the potential to damage the brains of our children . Many Canadian communities and countries around the world have banned the practice of adding fluoride to tap water. Fluoride Free Canada's mission is to educate and support all other Canadians in their efforts to do the same. MORE HEALTH EFFECTS OF FLUORIDE

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

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

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. SEE WHICH COUNTRIES DON'T FLUORIDATE

OUR 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. OUR 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. 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. OUR STEERING COMMITTEE ROBERT C DICKSON, MD, CCFP, FCFP DIRECTOR Calgary, AB PHILIPPA VON ZIEGENWEIDT TREASURER Windsor, ON JENNIFER MARETT, BASc SECRETARY Guelph, ON GILLES PARENT, ND ADVISOR Danville, QC JAMES P WINTER, PhD ADVISOR LaSalle, ON KIM DE YONG, BA, BEd ADVISOR Windsor, ON RICHARD HUDON ADVISOR Apple Hill, ON OUR FOUNDING MEMBERS Founding Members HOW CAN YOU HELP? We need people like you to work with us. Please consider volunteering your special skills and/or interests that could help make our mission successful (such as graphic artists, cartoonists, writers, editors, proofreaders, translators, social media experts, organizers, etc.). Even though our organization is new, we will always need assistance with the following roles: Media Responsible for the website's media page. All media requests will go through the Media Director, who will refer the requests to a designated spokesperson. Write press releases in coordination with others. Maintain the media list. Province/Territory Liaisons Responsible for content on the website page for their respective province/territory. Provincial Coordinator will oversee all liaisons. Government Reports Responsible for the website's Government Reports page. Follow reports released by the Federal and Provincial governments. Newsletter Responsible for the website's Newsletter page. Write and distribute a newsletter (minimum of two each month), based on the reports of the other groups. Art & Graphics Coordinate with the Webmaster on images used. Translation Responsible for the integrity of the language used on our bi-lingual site. Translate English to French Translate French to English Send us a question or offer your assistance

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

What's New – A log of postings A simple way for you to see what's new on our site! Last published Newsletter: November 25th , 2024 Added to new video content to the Home page; a letter by Bill Osmunson DDS MPH titled Reasons I No Longer Promote Fluoridation to the page Who Opposes Water Fluoridation; an Expert report written by Dr. Bruce Lanphear MD MPH for the January 2025 CPSA Tribunal hearing of Dr. Robert Dickson. February, 2025 Added to the New Science page an October 2024 study by Biological Trace Element Research, entitled: Fluoride Ingestion Induces Formation of Unusual Macromolecular Complexes in Gut Lumen Which Retard Absorption of Essential Minerals and Trace Elements by Chelation. January, 2025 View Added to the Advocacy page, a section for the Fluoride Free Canada, Ontario Working Group January, 2025 View Added to the New Science page a January 2025 study from JAMA Pediatrics, entitled: Fluoride Exposure and Children’s IQ Scores. January, 2025 View Added to the New Science page a November, 2024 study from Public Health Challenges, entitled: Community Water Fluoridation, a Cost-Benefit-Risk Consideration. November, 2024 View Added interactive Google map to "Who Fluoridates and Who Doesn't" page. Most locations in Ontario will also include a link to that municipalitie's water report. November, 2024 View Added to Fluoride Free Montreal on the Advocacy page that Quebec will be 99.75% fluoride free on December 20, 2024, with a link to a letter sent to Montreal-area councillors explaining their objections November, 2024 View Added to the home page video strip: Press Conference of Florida's Surgeon General, saying fluoridation is medical malpractice | October, 2024 podcast, where Michael Connett is interviewed by Dr. Ken Berry's on "Fluoride Dangers You Don't Know About" November, 2024 View Added a button to the New Science page to see the bios of key scientists associated with Canadian research: Bashash, Birnbaum, Hu, Lanphear, Till November, 2024 View Updated the New Science page with the following: October 2024 - Cochrane Study: Does adding fluoride to water supplies prevent tooth decay? | November 2022 - CATFISH prospective longitudinal cohort study: Evaluation of water fluoridation in Cumbria UK November, 2024 View Added a Frequently Asked Questions button to the home page Court Case section. November, 2024 View Updated the New Science page with the following: February 2021–Fluoride exposure and duration and quality of sleep in a Canadian population-based sample | June 2023–Health Canada expert panel meeting on the health effects of fluoride in drinking water October, 2024 View Updated Court Case page with information on the decision from the US Federal Court, including a video of Michael Connett, the plaintiff's lawyer, on the "Fluoridation Win". September, 2024 View Added new February, 2024 study to Science page: Dose dependence of prenatal fluoride exposure associations with cognitive performance at school age in three prospective studies. September, 2024 View Added a link to a May, 2024 podcast hosted by former Ontario physician Dr. Trozzi with Director of Fluoride Free Canada, Dr. Bob Dickson. They discuss the full scope of fluoridation issues from the beginning to the current lawsuit with the Environmental Protection Agency. (Video no longer available.) June, 2024 View Added to the home page video strip, a May, 2024 podcast (in French) where Gilles Parent ND, Director of Fluoride Free Canada, is interviewed by Franc Masson's "Eye Opener" podcast "Dans le franc des yeux". Dr. Parent is an expert in everything fluoride, from co-authoring "Fluoridation: Autopsy of a Scientific Error ", to being instrumental in Quebec being 99% fluoride-free. June, 2024 View Added two additional studies to the New Science page: (1) May 2024: Maternal Urinary Fluoride and Child Neurobehavior at Age 36 Months (2) July 2024: PKC-θ is an important driver of fluoride-induced immune imbalance of regulatory T cells/effector T cells. June, 2024 View Added to the home page "Presentations to Government Bodies", two presentations done by Windsor, Ontario; one in 2012 with a positive result (which was overturned in 2022; and one in May, 2024 showing current science. June, 2024 View Added to the bottom of the New Science page, a “sampling” of the scientific studies and reports relevant to water fluoridation, published since the US Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) 2015 recommendation to lower the fluoridation target to 0.7 ppm; created by Brenda Staudenmaier, a Plaintiff in the US lawsuit against water fluoridation and maintained on her website fluoridelawsuit.com. February, 2024 View Added two additional Canadian studies to the New Science page: (1) January, 2024: Fluoride exposure and thyroid hormone levels in pregnancy; (2) November 2023: Systematic review of epidemiological and toxicological evidence on health effects of fluoride in drinking water February, 2024 View Added to the home page video strip, lead attorney Michael Connett's interview on the Kim Iversen Show where he talked about those who are the most vulnerable to ingesting fluoride; as well as his interview at trial and int erviews by FAN's expert witnesses at trial: Dr. Howard Hu, Dr. Bruce Lanphear and Dr. Philippe Grandjean. February, 2024 View Updated the Court Case Progress page with the latest on the trial, including a chart of the trial timeline, and video interviews of FANs expert witnesses at trial: Dr. Howard Hu, Dr. Bruce Lanphear and Dr. Philippe Grandjean. February, 2024 View Added to the History page, a February, 2024 article for Druthers newspaper, written by Dr. Bob Dickson, summarizing the history and challenges of water fluoridation and why fluoridation is NOT safe. February, 2024 View Added to the New Science page, a January, 2024 report: The Lotus Study which is the largest fluoride study ever conducted, concluding NO meaningful benefit to water fluoridation. February, 2024 View Added to the home page, the Zoom link to the live Court Case, and added a video to the end of the Court Case updates page, where Michael Connett is being interviewed a day before the trial. February, 2024 View Added to the home page, a mini documentary by Michael Connett, the lawyer for the Plaintiff in the EPA trial, entitled: Fluoride On Trial: The Censored Science on Fluoride and Your Health January, 2024 View Added to the home page, a short video by the International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology on The National Toxicology Program and Fluoride Neurotoxicity. November, 2023 View Added "Sept. 23: One-Page Fact Sheet & Status" button to the lawsuit section on the home page . September, 2023 View Added July 5, 2023 video interview with Paul Connett PhD, with an update on the EPA lawsuit and detailing VERY passionately his experiences and frustration in dealing with government agencies. See "Fluoride in Water: The TRUTH" on the video strip. September, 2023 View Added August, 2023 Rumble.com podcast with Director of Fluoride Free Canada, Dr. Bob Dickson, containing excellent advice and tips for everyone! (Video no longer available) August, 2023 Added February, 2023 scientific study by Till and Hall on an association between fluoride exposure from tap water and hypothyroidism in pregnancy February, 2023 View Added a detailed report on Hexafluorosilicic Acid (Hydrofluorosilicic Acid): Raw Materials, Manufacture, Toxicity and Public Health Concerns as an Active Ingredient in the Fluoridation of Drinking Water to the History page February, 2023 View Sent out Notice of the Fluoridation Hearing with the US Environmental Protection Agency and the follow-up report. January, 2023 View Added the video of the October Hearing in the Court Case with the Environmental Protection Agency December, 2022 View The latest status of the Court Case with the Environmental Protection Agency (Merged all updates onto one page) November, 2022 View Added to video strip on home page: 5 Minutes of Hard Core Truth - Toxins in Water October, 2022 View Updated the status of the Court Case with the Environmental Protection Agency September, 2022 View Added Resource page of Highly Recommended Resource Materials (books) June, 2022 View Added End Fluoride Toronto to the Advocacy page and linked to their Facebook May, 2022 View Added Fluoride Free Montreal to the Advocacy page and linked to their Facebook April, 2022 View When Citizens Get Involved - Article added to Eau Secours on Advocacy page February, 2022 View Added Regina to the Advocacy page and linked to their Facebook February, 2022 View Added Vancouver to the Advocacy page and linked to Media Challenges February, 2022 View Added "Who is With Us" page to show organizations against fluoridation January, 2022 View Restructured homepage and added Memes and "What's New" button January, 2022 View Added "Case Status - Dec. 31/21" link in Court section of home page linking to video January, 2022 View Added Presentations to Government videos to bottom of homepage December, 2021 View Donate page updated with request to eTRANSFER to save PayPal fees December, 2021 View 1952 video on fluoridation posted as a link at the top of When Did Fluoridation Start December, 2021 View "Our Message" video posted - Intro on home page and full video on the About page October, 2021 View New Science page updated with Christine Till bio and video October, 2021 View Videos and Media articles posted to Advocacy page September, 2021 View 1st Newsletter Posted (link to Newsletter page in footer) September, 2021 View Website Live September 1st, 2021 View

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.

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

Saint-Georges présentation publique.pdf Legal Aspects of Fluoridation

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.