Food & Water Watch, Inc. et al v. Environmental Protection Agency et al

  1. September 13, 2022

    Green Groups Seek To Restart Fluoridated Water Risks Case

    Green groups on Monday urged a California judge to resume their lawsuit seeking to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to ban the addition of fluoride to drinking water, saying there's plenty of new information to warrant new proceedings.

  2. August 11, 2020

    Fluoride Risk Question Headed Back To EPA After Trial

    Following a bench trial over the risks of adding fluoride to drinking water, a California federal judge told the challengers to file a new administrative petition with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency so it can consider the substance's risks with the benefit of new evidence.

  3. July 08, 2020

    Biggest Enviro Law Cases To Watch In The Rest Of 2020

    The second half of 2020 could bring decisions in a host of important environmental law cases, including a series of challenges to the Trump administration's new rule defining the scope of the Clean Water Act, lawsuits targeting the president's efforts to roll back Obama-era national monuments, and a groundbreaking trial over whether the government should ban fluoride in drinking water.

  4. June 17, 2020

    EPA Should Reexamine Fluoridated Water Risks, Judge Says

    A California federal judge overseeing a bench trial challenging fluoridation of drinking water suggested during closing arguments Wednesday that he hold off ruling so that the EPA can reevaluate fluoride's risks, saying the agency apparently used the wrong standard and hadn't considered additional information raised at trial.

  5. June 16, 2020

    EPA Risk Assessment Director Stands By Fluoridated Water

    The director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Risk Assessment Division testified Tuesday in a federal bench trial about the safety of fluoride in drinking water, saying the most robust science available supported the EPA's finding that it's safe to fluoridate water at the nationally recommended level.

  6. June 15, 2020

    EPA Experts Say Fluoride Not Shown Toxic At Low Levels

    Two science consultants retained by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defended fluoride in drinking water at a bench trial Monday, testifying that despite animal studies showing possible neurotoxic effects at high levels, there is insufficient evidence to show fluoride is harmful to infant brains at the lower levels in drinking water.

  7. June 12, 2020

    EPA Defends Safety Of Fluoridated Drinking Water At Trial

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency launched its defense on Friday in a California federal bench trial against nonprofit groups seeking to end the practice of adding fluoride to public drinking water systems, calling on expert witnesses who testified that there's insufficient scientific evidence to conclude fluoride harms infant brain development.

  8. June 10, 2020

    EPA Scientist Testifies Animal Studies Point To Fluoride Risks

    Groups seeking to ban drinking-water fluoridation across America called a series of witnesses at a bench trial Wednesday to testify to its damaging effects, including a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency scientist who said that animal studies support the conclusion that fluoride has a damaging effect on infant brain development.

  9. June 09, 2020

    Fluoride In Water Is 'Endangering' Children's IQs, Judge Told

    Fluoride is a human developmental neurotoxin that lowers children's IQ levels, a Harvard University epidemiologist warned during a California federal bench trial Tuesday, testifying on behalf of nonprofit groups seeking to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to ban adding fluoride to 200 million Americans' drinking water.

  10. June 08, 2020

    Advocates Say Fluoride Harms Infants As Trial Opens

    Groups seeking to ban drinking-water fluoridation argued during the opening of a California federal bench trial Monday that fluoride poses significant neurological risks to newborns, while the EPA argued that they don't have standing to sue and that their experts cite a "hodgepodge" of unreliable studies.