Search Results

DENTAL FLUOROSIS A Dental Disaster As both the numbers of Americans and percentage of the population drinking fluoridated water swelled, dental fluorosis also grew, disproportionately and with worse severity in Black and Latino populations. Dental fluorosis is a defect in the tooth due to cell death during the formative stages. Those with dental fluorosis have higher bone fractures as well as higher rates of learning disabilities. Dental fluorosis is the visible evidence of similar defects due to cytotoxic effects that occur in bones and brains during critical periods of development, i.e. prenatal, infancy and early childhood. Dental fluorosis is also a leading indicator of higher dental costs as these unattractive and brittle teeth will require costly veneers and crowns in young adulthood. Per 2011-2012 NHANES figures released in 2017, one in five (23%) American teens have brown mottling and perhaps pitting on at least two fluorosed teeth due to childhood exposure. RESOURCES 1962 Memo: http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/1962_01_10_Blacks_Fluorosis.pdf “Negros in Grand Rapids had twice as much fluorosis - indices 0.15 v. 0.35” 2005 CDC MMWR: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5403a1.htm “Prevalence of enamel fluorosis has increased in cohorts born since 1980.” 2010 CDC Report: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.pdf “(All levels of) dental fluorosis were higher among adolescents aged 12–15 in 1999–2004 than in 1986–1987.” 2015 “Agua Potable o Veneno” (part 2 of 3): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGswvGZPL-M Ethnic Breakdown: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5403a1.htm#tab23 2017 Dental fluorosis is result of apoptosis: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5770627/ 2018 Increase: http://jdh.adha.org/content/92/1/23 Conclusion: “There was a difference of 31.6% in dental fluorosis prevalence between 2012-2011 when compared to data from 2002-2001 in adolescents aged 16 and 17 years. The continued increase in fluorosis rates in the U.S. indicates that additional measures need to be implemented to reduce its prevalence.” When fluoridation first began, the proponents promised the American public that the only and worst risk from the program was that something less than 10% of children might have a few faint white spots on their ‘cavity resistant’ teeth which many would find adds an attractive sparkle. Also of note, the researchers in the early fluoridation trials treated African American children differently from the outset, writing that it was common knowledge that Negros have stronger teeth more resistant to decay. It didn’t take long for those involved to realize that something was very wrong, but their reaction per 1962 memo that noted high rates of fluorosis that was doubled in the African American children emphasized protecting the fluoridation program.

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

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.

ONTARIO WORKING GROUP Brant County Fluoride Free Brant County Facebook Hamilton Fluoride Free Hamilton (20+) Fluoride Free Hamilton | Facebook Lambton Fluoride Free Lambton Facebook London Fluoride Free London Ontario Fluoride Free London Ontario | Facebook Oshawa Fluoride Free Oshawa Facebook Ottawa Fluoridation-Free Ottawa Fluoridation-Free Ottawa - Main Information Page - City of Ottawa - Fluoridation-Free Ottawa Owen Sound Fluoridation Free Owen Sound Fluoridation Free Owen Sound | Facebook Peel Region Fluoride Free Peel Fluoride Free Peel Sudbury Sudburians for a Fluoride Free Sudbury Sudburians For A Fluoride-Free Sudbury | Facebook Toronto End Fluoride Toronto END FLUORIDE TORONTO | Help Us End The Use Of Fluoride Fluoride Free Toronto (20+) Facebook Windsor Fluoride Free Windsor-Essex Fluoride Free Windsor-Essex | Windsor ON | Facebook

SUPPORTING DOCUMENT for letter sent to Prime Minister Trudeau and all Canadian Premiers September 1st, 2021 NEUROTOXICITY OF FLUORIDE AND DOCUMENTED HARM ON OTHER TISSUES Neurotoxicity There is an ever-growing body of peer-reviewed studies, beginning in the mid-1990s, that indicate that fluoride is neurotoxic. To date, more than 76 human studies , most from endemic fluorosis areas in China, have associated lowered IQ with fluoride exposure. Promoters of water fluoridation have dismissed the relevance of these studies (a) because of methodological limitations and (b) because many—but not all—of these findings occurred at higher fluoride concentrations than those used in water fluoridation programs. Nevertheless, there has been general agreement that the findings have been remarkably consistent [Choi et al., 2012 ]. A very significant improvement in the quality of these studies occurred in 2017, when the first of four prospective cohort studies funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [NIEHS] in the United States were published: [Bashash et al., 2017 and 2018 ]; [Green et al., 2019 ] (also funded by Health Canada ) and [Till et al., 2020 ]. Canadian researchers were involved in all of these rigorously designed studies. For the first time, the studies included pregnant women and their offspring. This was important, because fluoride is known to cross the placenta. Measurements of both exposure and outcome were made at the individual level (previously these were made less precisely at the community level, in so-called “ecological” studies). Also, the study by Till et al., 2020 showed that the infant brain is also susceptible to damage from fluoride. They showed a large reduction in IQ when children were bottle-fed as babies in communities which were fluoridated, compared with babies who were bottle-fed in non-fluoridated communities. Most importantly, the fluoride exposures in all these studies were at levels commonly experienced by pregnant women and children in fluoridated communities in Canada. The weight of evidence now strongly suggests that fluoride is capable of damaging both the fetal and the infant brain even at very low levels . Based upon Philippe Grandjean et al.’s Benchmark Dose Analysis , offspring born to women exposed to fluoride doses commonly experienced in communities at 0.7 ppm, would experience a loss of 4 to 5 IQ points. To put that into perspective, at the population level , a shift downward of 5 IQ points halves the number of very bright children (IQ >130) and increases by 57% the number of children needing special care (IQ <70). Both changes have enormous social and economic ramifications for Canada. According to Grandjean, because of the large number of children being deliberately exposed to fluoridated water, fluoride is causing a greater overall loss of IQ points today than lead, arsenic or mercury. The loss of IQ points has lifelong consequences. For the individual , it has been estimated that a loss of one IQ point would reduce lifetime earnings by $18,000 [Grandjean et al., 2012 ]. For the whole Canadian population, we are talking about losses of billions of dollars in lifetime earnings. The Fluoride Action Network in the United States has prepared a review of fluoride’s neurotoxicity from the Mother-Offspring studies , accessible here . RECENT STUDIES PUBLISHED ON OTHER ORGANS, TISSUES AND BODY SYSTEMS Bone A major prospective cohort study from Sweden demonstrates a higher risk of hip fractures 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 a very serious finding because it is well known that hip fractures in the elderly are debilitating, costly to treat, lead to a loss of independence, institutional care and often shorten the life of those impacted. This finding also underlines the fact that fluoride can impact our health from womb to tomb, effecting the brains of the fetus and the bones of the elderly after lifetime exposure. Kidney and liver function, hyperuricemia and reproductive endocrinology Recent epidemiological studies conducted in the United States, using individual biomarker measures of fluoride exposure, have found an association between low to moderate fluoride intake and impaired kidney and liver function [Malin et al., 2019 ], increased risk of hyperuricemia [Wei et al., 2021 ], as well as adverse effects on reproductive endocrinology in American adolescents [Bai et al., 2020 ].

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON FLUORIDE General1 Why is fluoride added to water? Fluoride is added to water to prevent cavities (tooth decay), a disease that is not waterborne. However, fluoride should be applied topically to teeth, such as fluoridated toothpaste, rather than forced through tap water on adults, children, and infants What makes fluoride different from other water treatment chemicals? All water treatment chemicals except fluoride are added to make drinking water safe and pleasant to drink. Fluoride is the only chemical added to "treat people" consuming the water, rather than the water itself. Water fluoridation can be described as a form of mass medication, which is why most European countries have rejected this practice. Do we need fluoride? No. It is now well established that fluoride is not an essential nutrient. This means that no human disease – including tooth decay – will result from fluoride “deficiency”. Fluoridation of tap water is therefore different from adding iodine to salt. Unlike fluoride, iodine is an essential nutrient. Iodine is involved in metabolism, moving cellular secretions from inside cells to the outside. Iodine is also involved in the frontline immune response, energy production, fetal and early childhood cognitive development, and hormone production, as well as in the detoxification of heavy metals, halogens, radiation and much more. No such need exists for fluoride. In fact, fluoride will displace iodine on cell receptors, creating an iodine deficiency. Is fluoride naturally present in water? Typically, the only fresh water with high levels of fluoride (other than water polluted by fluoride-emitting industries) is water from deep wells. Rather than being something to celebrate, high levels of naturally occurring fluorides have wreaked havoc on the health of tens of millions of people around the world. People consuming water containing naturally high levels of fluoride have been found to suffer from serious health problems, including disfiguring tooth damage, bone disease, ulcers, reduced IQ, thyroid disease and infertility. For this reason, international organizations like UNICEF are helping developing countries find ways to remove fluoride from their water. Fortunately, most freshwater sources contain very low levels of fluoride. The average level of fluoride in unpolluted fresh water is less than 0.1 ppm, which is about 7 times lower than the levels added to water in Canadian fluoridation programs (0.7 mg/L). The frequent assertion, therefore, that “nature thought of fluoridation first” does not stand up to scrutiny. Where does the fluoride added to the water come from? The main chemicals used to fluoridate drinking water are called “silicofluorides” (ie hydrofluorosilicic acid and sodium fluorosilicate). Silicofluorides are not pharmaceutical grade fluorinated products; they are unprocessed industrial by-products of the phosphate fertilizer industry. Since these silicofluorides do not undergo any purification procedures, they can contain high levels of arsenic, more than any other water treatment chemical. Additionally, recent research suggests that adding silicofluorides to water is a risk factor for elevated lead exposure, especially among residents who live in homes with old plumbing. Does fluoridated water reduce tooth decay? If water fluoridation has any benefit, it is minimal. Recent large-scale studies in the United States have found little real or statistical difference in rates of tooth decay in children living in fluoridated areas compared to non-fluoridated areas. Additionally, data compiled by the World Health Organization (WHO) shows that tooth decay rates have declined just as rapidly in non-fluoridated Western countries as in fluoridated Western countries. Should fluoride be swallowed to prevent tooth decay? No. Although water fluoridation was initially endorsed on the premise that ingesting fluoride is the most effective way to strengthen teeth, most dental researchers now agree that the primary benefit of fluoride comes from topical contact directly with the teeth, not from ingestion. You don't have to swallow fluoride to prevent tooth decay, whether it's in the form of water or tablets. It is difficult to overstate the importance of this point in the fluoride debate, especially when one considers that the risks of fluoride come primarily from ingestion. Are there any risks in swallowing fluoride? Fluoride has long been known to be a very toxic substance. This is why, like arsenic, fluoride has been used in pesticides and rodenticides (to kill rats, insects, etc.). It's also why the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) now requires that all fluoride toothpaste sold in the United States carry a poison warning that instructs users to contact the poison control center if they swallow more than should be used for brushing. Excessive fluoride exposure is well known to cause painful bone disease (skeletal fluorosis), as well as tooth discoloration known as dental fluorosis. Excessive fluoride exposure has also been linked to a range of other chronic diseases, including arthritis, brittle bones, glucose intolerance, gastrointestinal disorders, thyroid disease and possibly heart disease and certain types of cancer. Although the lowest doses that cause some of these effects are not yet well defined, it is clear that certain subgroups of the population are particularly vulnerable to fluoride toxicity. Populations that have an increased sensitivity to fluoride include infants, people with kidney disease, people with nutritional deficiencies (particularly of calcium and iodine), and people with medical conditions that cause excessive thirst. How do I avoid fluoride in my tap water? If you live in a community that fluoridates its water supply, there are several options to avoid drinking the fluoride that is added. Unfortunately, each of these options will cost money (unless you have access to a free source of spring water). Options include: Spring water: Most spring water contains very low levels of fluoride (usually less than 0.1 ppm). Water Filtration: Water filters that remove fluoride include: reverse osmosis, deionizers that use an ion exchange resin, and activated alumina. Cheaper water filters (eg Brita) use an "activated carbon" filter which does NOT remove fluoride. Water Distillation: Water distillation is an effective way to remove fluoride from water. Water distillation units are available in different sizes, including a smaller countertop version. My child has dental fluorosis. What can I do to fix it? The tooth discoloration that fluorosis causes can be reduced and sometimes eliminated by relatively expensive cosmetic treatments. Treatment options for fluorosis, however, will depend on the severity of the fluorosis. If our water does not contain fluoride, should we give our child fluoride supplements? Supplements were developed on the mistaken assumption that fluoride is a nutrient and is effective when swallowed. Modern research has found that fluoride supplements greatly increase the risk of dental fluorosis and do little if anything to reduce tooth decay. Most Western countries have consequently begun to eliminate the use of fluoride supplements and even the American Dental Association (ADA) recommends them only for children who are at particularly high risk of tooth decay.

WHO FLUORIDATES AND WHO DOESN'T? TO LEARN ABOUT THE WORLDWIDE MOVEMENT AGAINST WATER FLUORIDATION CLICK HERE UNFLUORIDATED COUNTRIES FLUORIDATED COUNTRIES Flags LEARN MORE > Statements from European Authorities The late Dr. Hans Moolenburgh of the Netherlands:

WE WON! Federal Court Rules That Water Fluoridation Poses an “Unreasonable Risk” to Children The ruling requires the EPA to take regulatory action to eliminate the risk, in a decision that could end the use of water fluoridation chemicals throughout the U.S. After a precedent-setting 7-year legal battle in federal court, an historic ruling by the United States District Court of the Northern District of California has ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take regulatory action to eliminate the “unreasonable risk” to the health of children posed by the practice of water fluoridation. The verdict is a significant loss for the EPA and the promoters of fluoridation like the American Dental Association and the US Centers For Disease Control because the court found that their claims of safety–made for over 75 years–were in fact not supported by evidence. Senior Judge Edward Chen wrote, “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.” "In all, there is substantial and scientifically credible evidence establishing that fluoride poses a risk to human health; it is associated with a reduction in the IQ of children and is hazardous at dosages that are far too close to fluoride levels in the drinking water of the United States…Reduced IQ poses serious harm. Studies have linked IQ decrements of even one or two points to, e.g., reduced educational attainment, employment status, productivity, and earned wages.” The ruling did not specify exactly what measures must be adopted by the EPA, but under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), once the court rules that a chemical poses an unreasonable risk, the EPA is obligated by law to restrict or eliminate the risk. Judge Chen described a range of options for regulating fluoridation, including banning it, but he warned, “One thing the EPA cannot do, however, in the face of this Court’s finding, is to ignore that risk." READ THE FULL RULING Here are some notable excerpts from the ruling: Pg 3: There is little dispute in this suit as to whether fluoride poses a hazard to human health. Indeed, EPA’s own expert agrees that fluoride is hazardous at some level of exposure. And ample evidence establishes that a mother’s exposure to fluoride during pregnancy is associated with IQ decrements in her offspring. Pg 5: The pooled benchmark dose analysis concluded that a 1-point drop in IQ of a child is to be expected for each 0.28 mg/L of fluoride in a pregnant mother’s urine. This is highly concerning, because maternal urinary fluoride levels for pregnant mothers in the United States range from 0.8 mg/L at the median and 1.89 mg/L depending upon the degree of exposure. Not only is there an insufficient margin between the hazard level and these exposure levels, for many, the exposure levels exceed the hazard level of 0.28 mg/L. Pg 5: Even if the toxicologically determined hazard level of 0.28 mg/L were deemed insufficiently substantiated, evidence in the record still establishes with little doubt that fluoridated drinking water presents a risk of injury to health. Pg 6: The EPA’s default margin of error requires a factor of 10 between the hazard level and exposure level due to variability in human sensitivities… Here, an even greater margin (100x) is owed because the methodology (which yields the 4 mg/L hazard level) uses the lowest observed adverse effect level (“LOAEL”); this methodology adds an additional level of uncertainty (and hence the application of a 100x rather than 10x margin). But even if only the default 10x margin is required, the safe level of fluoride exposure would be 0.4 mg/L (4 mg/L (hazard level) divided by 10). The “optimal” water fluoridation level in the United States of 0.7 mg/L is nearly double that safe level of 0.4 mg/L for pregnant women and their offspring. Pg 77: The scientific literature in the record provides a high level of certainty that a hazard is present ; fluoride is associated with reduced IQ. There are uncertainties presented by the underlying data regarding the appropriate point of departure and exposure level to utilize in this risk evaluation. But those uncertainties do not undermine the finding of an unreasonable risk; in every scenario utilizing any of the various possible points of departures, exposure levels and metrics, a risk is present in view of the applicable uncertainty factors that apply. Pg 78: There is significant certainty in the data set regarding the association between fluoride and reduced IQ. Namely, there is a robust body of evidence finding a statistically significant adverse association between fluoride and IQ . A large majority of the 72 epidemiological studies assessed by the NTP Monograph observed this relationship including all but one of the 19 high-quality studies, see ¶¶ 34-36, and literature published after the NTP Monograph cutoff date observed the same relationship, see ¶ 37 – and countervailing evidence, for various reasons described previously, are of little impact on this repeated, and consistently observed association between fluoride and reduced IQ, see ¶ 39. Moreover, complete consistency amongst studies is not expected. See Dkt. No. 414, Feb. 9, 20240, Trial Tr. at 1172:23-1173:6 (Savitz). Notably, notwithstanding inherent difficulties in observing this association at lower exposure levels, studies assessing such levels still observed a statistically significant relationship between fluoride and reduced IQ. See ¶¶ 42-44. Again, to put the breadth of evidence supporting this finding in perspective, the EPA has identified a LOAEL based upon far less in other contexts. For instance, in the EPA’s risk evaluation of Methylene, conducted pursuant to Amended TSCA, the EPA used a LOAEL for developmental neurotoxicity, derived from the analysis of one study conducted upon mouse pups (Fredriksson et al., 1992). See Methylene Risk Evaluation at 262. Compare this with 6 (water fluoride) and 9 (urinary fluoride), high-quality, epidemiological studies of human populations underling the 4 mg/L LOAEL underlying the POD here. Dkt. No. 431-2, Trial Ex. 68 at 39, 41 (eTable 4). The scientific literature in the record provides a high level of certainty that a hazard is present; fluoride is associated with reduced IQ. The qualitative evidence is superior. Pg 76: 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. See Dkt. No. 421 at 206-07 (undisputed). Other Americans are indirectly exposed to fluoridated water through consumption of commercial beverages and food manufactured with fluoridated water Pg 76: Approximately two million pregnant women, and over 300,000 exclusively formula-fed babies are exposed to fluoridated water. The number of pregnant women and formula-fed babies alone who are exposed to water fluoridation each year exceeds entire populations exposed to conditions of use for which EPA has found unreasonable risk ; the EPA has found risks unreasonable where the population impacted was less than 500 people. The Fluoride Action Network’s attorney, Michael Connett, said, “The Court has done what EPA has long refused to do: applied EPA’s risk assessment framework to fluoride. It’s a historic decision. And, as we await EPA’s rulemaking proceeding, policymakers would be well advised to ask: “Should we really be adding a neurotoxicant to our drinking water?” BACKGROUND The lawsuit was brought under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA) which allows citizens to petition the EPA to evaluate whether a chemical presents an unreasonable risk to public health and should be regulated. It also empowers citizen groups to challenge the EPA in court after denial of a petition. TSCA gives EPA the authority to prohibit "the particular use" of a chemical substance if it’s found to present an unreasonable risk to the general public or susceptible subpopulations. FAN submitted a Citizens Petition under Section 21 of TSCA to the EPA in November 2016 requesting a ban on the addition of fluoridation chemicals to water. When the EPA denied our Petition, FAN filed suit in federal court in 2017, joined by consumer advocacy groups, Food and Water Watch and Moms Against Fluoridation , public health associations, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine , and the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology , as well as several individuals representing themselves and/or their children, including Brenda and Ko Staudenmaier and Kristie Lavelle. After a two-week bench trial held via Zoom in June 2020, the trial was placed in abeyance as the court awaited the finalization of the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) systematic review of fluoride neurotoxicity. However, in 2022, pressure from pro-fluoridation interest groups led to NTP’s report being blocked from public release by top officials in the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Plaintiffs submitted documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act exposing this intervention to the court. This discovery led to a legal agreement forcing the report to be made public and prompting Chen to rule that the trial should go forward using the draft report from the NTP. A second, and final, phase of the bench trial was held over several weeks during the winter of 2024. And just last month, the NTP finally published the first part of their report, finding a “large body” of evidence that fluoride exposure is “consistently associated with lower IQ in children.” An accompanying NTP meta-analysis is soon to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Click here for a timeline of the lawsuit . Click here for FAN’s comprehensive webpage on the lawsuit PRECEDENT SETTING This is the first time a citizen's petition has gone to trial, and it’s the first time a citizen group has won a trial against EPA under TSCA Section 21. Our case and our victory will undoubtedly create opportunities for citizen and environmental watchdog groups to use the same blueprint as FAN in the future to force the EPA to adequately regulate chemicals that pose an unreasonable risk to public health. This trial was also the first time citizen groups have successfully obtained a full objective review of the science on fluoridation, in a courtroom, with experts under oath, under TSCA's provisions that create a level playing field between the citizen groups and the EPA defending a chemical. Under most statutes, when citizens sue a federal agency, the courts give deference to the views of the agency. But in this lawsuit, under a special provision of TSCA, the court does not give deference to the EPA. Congress specifically added this level playing field because it recognized EPA can be too slow to address harmful chemical exposures. INITIAL MEDIA COVERAGE The media is quickly picking up this story, with coverage thus far from the following outlets: CBS News: Federal Court Rules Against EPA in Lawsuit Over Fluoride in Water Bloomberg Law: EPA Must Reduce Fluoride’s IA Risks to Children, Court Says The Defender: Fluoride in Water Poses ‘Unreasonable Risk’ to Children, Federal Judge Rules Dr. Bicuspid: U.S. Court - Fluoride in Water Risky, Must be Addressed CNN: Fluoride in Water Poses Enough Risk to Merit New EPA Action, Judge Says Reuters: EPA Must Address Fluoridated Water’s Risk to Children’s IQs, US Judge Rules The Hill: Judge Orders EPA to Address Potential IQ Impacts of Fluoride in Drinking Water Politico: Fluoride Ruling Pushes EPA for Regulatory Action Associated Press / ABC News: Fluoride in Drinking Water Poses Enough Risk to Merit New EPA Action, Judge Says …and much more is expected over the coming days. NEXT STEPS The court has ordered EPA to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to come up with a new regulation that will restrict or eliminate the risk posed by fluoridation chemicals to the developing brain. The ONLY way to effectively do this is to end fluoridation. Communities are currently adding this neurotoxin to the public water supplies voluntarily. The harm is needlessly self-inflicted, but this also means the solution is simple: ban the use of fluoridation chemicals. The EPA may appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit , or they could take a few years to develop rules. In our view, attempts by the EPA to appeal or delay this ruling will only result in harm to hundreds of thousands of additional children, particularly those whose families are unable to afford expensive reverse osmosis or distillation filtration of their tap water. We urge everyone reading this bulletin to share it, along with the ruling itself, with your local media outlets, decisionmakers, neighbors, and state legislators. Policymakers at the local and state level do not need to wait to take action. The federal government doesn’t mandate fluoridation, and thus local and state decisionmakers can take action immediately. We have a very thorough decision made by the federal courts based on extensive evidence. The public didn’t sign up to have a chemical added to public drinking water that could adversely affect the brain. And while a cavity can easily be filled, damage to the brain is permanent, and the consequences are lifelong. There are no second chances when it comes to impaired brain development. Sincerely, Stuart Cooper Executive Director Fluoride Action Network

VANCOUVER – CHALLENGING THE MEDIA On October 24, 2021 , the CBC posted an article , authored by Bethany Lindsay, calling Vancouver "The rotten tooth capital of Canada". CHALLENGE TO BETHANY LINDSAY FROM THE CHAIR OF FLUORIDE FREE CANADA, DR. BOB DICKSON, MD, CCFP, FCFP October 31, 2021 I am writing you as the chair of Fluoride-Free Canada, whose mission is to eliminate water fluoridation in Canada based on safety and ethical grounds. Please consider this a formal request to have a follow-up article to your October 24 CBC story, “As Calgary votes for fluoride, some in B.C. have hope for 'rotten tooth capital of Canada.” Frankly, we were appalled, for several reasons: Your headline, sensationalizing a 1976 quote from one fluoridation advocate, is not only woefully outdated, it’s simply false. Province-wide data shows B.C., which has the lowest fluoridation rate in Canada (excluding Yukon), actually has a slightly lower cavity rate in young children than Ontario, which has the highest fluoridation rate. Your story was completely one-sided, quoting three fluoridation promoters and none that were opposed. Your story violated several of CBC’s own principles promoting factual information, lack of bias and diversity of opinion. Your story also completely ignored extensive scientific studies, many led by prominent Canadian scientists, linking fluoridated water with lower IQs in children, along with several other serious health risks. Could you please answer me directly by this Tuesday, November 2nd, on whether you will produce another story on this issue showing the other side? _____________________ RESPONSE FROM CBC'S SHIRAL TOBIN AND FURTHER CHALLENGE TO JACK NAGLER, CBC OMBUDSMAN Date: December 16, 2021 To: Jack Nagler, CBC Ombudsperson cc: Shiral Tobin, Brodie Fenlon Good day, Mr. Nagler. My name is Robert Dickson, MD, and I’m the Chair of Fluoride-Free Canada , the nationwide organization leading the opposition to artificial water fluoridation. This is my third communication with CBC staff regarding the CBC’s October 24 story, “As Calgary votes for fluoride, some in B.C. have hope for ‘rotten tooth capital of Canada.’” On Nov. 1st, I had e-mailed Bethany Lindsay, Producer of the story, citing the inaccuracy and bias of the story, and asking for a follow-up that would clear up the misconceptions it created. I received no response from her. On Nov. 8th, I e-mailed your office, citing these inaccuracies, biases, and contradictions with CBC’s own principles and standards. On Dec. 3rd, I received a response from Shiral Tobin, who disagreed that the article violated your standards. She said if I wasn’t satisfied with her response, I should contact you. I am not satisfied with her response. I don’t believe it’s necessary to repeat what I’ve already said in my initial complaint. I’ll just concentrate on responding to Ms. Tobin’s comments, beyond noting that neither Ms. Lindsay nor Ms. Tobin responded to my request for a follow-up story giving other major health perspectives on this issue. MS TOBIN: “The headline is eye-catching but it cites back to a CBC interview from a former medical health officer, which is appropriate to use in the context of this story.” RESPONSE : The headline is what people often remember the most. In many cases, it may be all they read. The fact that it was made by a former medical health officer isn’t the point – it’s a false statement, as shown by the government statistics we provided, and that’s what completely contradicts your stated journalistic standard of providing “professional judgment based on facts and expertise”. We would hope that any CBC reporter would take a few minutes to check the accuracy of a quote from 1976 before putting it into the headline. Ms. Lindsay did not, and Ms. Tobin is defending this headline. The quote is factually incorrect and it was the most prominent statement in the entire article. Inaccuracy is never “appropriate . This is not responsible journalism. MS TOBIN: “This is a story about people calling for a change to the status quo, which is why those voices are the focus of the article.” RESPONSE : Fluoride Free Canada has no quibble with a particular focus. Our complaint is that there is no balance to put the issue itself in focus. In CBC’s own words: “We contribute to informed debate on issues that matter to Canadians by reflecting a diversity of opinion. Our content on all platforms presents a wide range of subject matter and views. On issues of controversy, we ensure that divergent views are reflected respectfully, taking into account their relevance to the debate and how widely held these views are.” I don’t know how much more obvious it could be that there was no diversity of opinion whatsoever in this article. How can this not be a violation of your own standards? MS TOBIN : “The article offers up additional information and links to back up the claims made by the experts and doctors quoted . . .” RESPONSE : Well, yes, the article did offer this information, but as stated above, it’s only one from one side. MS TOBIN : “I am not aware of the studies (on fluoridation lowering IQ) you mention in your letter linking fluoride to intelligence and you do not provide any links. But the one I know of shows correlation, not causation, and even that is not a very strong effect.” RESPONSE : I think this goes to the crux of CBC’s problem. No, you’re not aware. Ms. Tobin is correct in that I didn’t provide documentation, so let’s address that right now. In July 2019, the University of Calgary’s O’Brien Institute of Public Health, after an extensive review, published its report on fluoridation saying “In summary, there is some new emerging evidence that fluoride exposure during pregnancy may be harmful to the brain development of children, with important studies having been published subsequent to the review of this evidence by the National Research Council in the U.S. in 2006.” By way of reference, the U.S. NRC report (p.222) concluded “It is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body by direct and indirect means.” In preparing your response to me, I ask two things: Keep an open mind. I realize you’re busy, but please take half an hour to read and view the following by world-renowned scientific experts, many of whom are Canadians. (Please note that one of these experts, Dr. Bruce Lanphear, is a professor and scientist at Simon Fraser U. in Vancouver. I would hope that any future articles you do regarding fluoridation, especially in B. C., include reaching out to him for comment.) By doing so, I believe you’ll be surprised to learn that there is NO question that fluoride is toxic to the developing brain and extensive evidence that water fluoridation, at Canadian levels, affects pregnant women, unborn children and infants by lowering IQ and increasing ADHD rates. Environmental Health News article : “It is Time to Protect Developing Kids’ Brains from Fluoride” (2 minute read) Dr. Bruce Lanphear : “The Impact of Fluoride on Brain Development” (5 minute video) Dr. Christine Till : Calgary Rotary Club presentation September 28, 2021 (22 minute video) I also refer you to two one-pagers on fluoridation’s lack of effectiveness and neurotoxicity – again at levels in Canada’s fluoridated water. They each take about one minute to read. Fluoride Efficacy Fluoride Neurotoxicity Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Robert Dickson, MD, CCFP, FCFP Chair, Fluoride Free Canada _____________________ To date...no reply.

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 33:29 Exclusive: Historic Fluoride Ruling Overturned - What Comes Next? with Michael Connett Exclusive: Historic Fluoride Ruling Overturned - What Comes Next? with Michael Connett Derrick Broze sits down with attorney Michael Connett to discuss the recent decision by a federal appeals court to overturn the historic 2024 federal court ruling which found that water fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk to the nuerodevelopment of children. Connett also outlines the flaws in a recent study claiming that there are no harms associated with water fluoridation. Follow Michael for the latest developments: https://x.com/michaelpconnett/ Play Video Play Video 33:56 Poisoned Horses Dr. David Kennedy, dentist and researcher, presents an amazing video story of tremendous courage and resolve. Cathy and Wayne Justus of Pagosa Springs, Colorado experience incredible debilitating symptoms in their world class quarter horses and their dogs with seemingly no source or reason. After the death of Cathy's prize horse, the local veterinarian tested for every known possibility for the cause, but could not come up with an explanation. It was not until Dr. Lennart Krook, Professor Emeritus of Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine tested for fluoride toxicity that Wayne and Cathy knew for certain what was killing their horses. They had been poisoned by fluoride in their drinking water. Because of Cathy's tenacious insistence with the local water department concerning the science of the issue, and because citizens of Pagosa Springs had educated themselves, fluoridation was eventually stopped in their community. We are very happy to report that Wayne and Cathy's horses and dogs are now living healthy happy lives with no fluoride symptoms whatsoever now that fluoridation has been stopped in Pagosa Springs. Cathy Justus also writes: I forgot to mention that on the "Poisoned Horses" DVD, what wasn't explained is why my Palomino gelding, Win, is loping along in the pasture with his head down. If he was out in the pasture for over an hour with his head down eating grass, he physically could not pick his head up for hours from the skeletal damage fluoride did to him. The links to the published peer reviewed scientific manuscripts and editorials in the journal FLUORIDE The Quarterly Journal of the International Society For Fluoride Research are: Editorial on horses by Dr. Albert Burgstahler "FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE FLUORIDE POISONING IN HORSES CAUSED BY WATER FLUORIDATION" http://www.fluorideresearch.org/391/files/3911-2.pdf 1st peer reviewed scientific manuscript on horses by Dr. Lennart P. Krook and Cathy Justus "FLUORIDE POISONING OF HORSES FROM ARTIFICIALLY FLUORIDATED DRINKING WATER" http://www.fluorideresearch.org/391/files/3913-10.pdf 2nd peer reviewed scientific manuscript on horses by Cathy Justus and Lennart P. Krook "ALLERGY IN HORSES FROM ARTIFICIALLY FLUORIDATED WATER" http://www.fluorideresearch.org/392/files/39289-94.pdf 3rd peer reviewed scientific manuscript on horses by Pixi Macicek and Dr. Lennart Krook "FLUOROSIS IN HORSES DRINKING ARTIFICIALLY FLUORIDATED WATER" http://www.fluorideresearch.org/413/files/FJ2008_v41_n3_p177-183.pdf Editorial on equines by Dr. Bruce Spittle: "FLUORIDE TOXICITY AND DONKEYS" http://www.fluorideresearch.org/431a/files/FJ2010_v43_n1_p004.pdf 4th peer reviewed scientific manuscript on equines by S.L Choubisa, Vdaipur, India "OSTEO-DENTAL FLUOROSIS IN DOMESTIC HORSES AND DONKEYS IN RAJASTHAN, INDIA" http://www.fluorideresearch.org/431a/files/FJ2010_v43_n1_p005-012.pdf The copyright to this video is held by Dr. David Kennedy who has given his gracious permission for us to present it in its entirety. We would also like to thank Cathy and Wayne Justus for their courage and permission to share this video with the world. This video posting is dedicated to the noble horse. May its descendants live healthy and happy lives. 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 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