History has been 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. The decision is written very strongly in our favor, and we will share it in its entirety tomorrow. 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."
You actually answered your own question, but it is likely not the answer you wanted. Yes - it allows for the overturning of a bunch of stuff. No - it doesn't mandate it. That will require either court cases to force the issue, or someone that doesn't care about career longevity with those agencies to change it from within. Translation - it will take time and money.
Yeah, I realize that the agencies aren't going to undo these regulations themselves and instead it's going to take a court case brought from the outside. But the Chevron Doctrine ruling seems as if it would go a long way in supporting any such case brought against an agency.
Absolutely! The trick is finding someone with the time, money, and the infamous "standing" to get there.
I'd hope Stephen Miller and America First Legal would be starting to chip away at the agencies after the Chevron Doctrine ruling. As well as a whole bunch of other conservative legal firms. Of course they have to find the impacted victims, but since the ruling was they could go back in time, indefinitely?, they should have no problem finding victims from past cases I'm thinking.