#FluorideTrial: Ruling Delayed As Judge Asks Defense and Plaintiffs to Discuss New Evidence
Sat 8:03 pm +01:00, 20 Jun 2020
19 JUN 2020 by DERRICK BROZE
THE HISTORIC TRIAL EXAMINING THE DANGERS OF WATER FLUORIDATION REACHED A TEMPORARY CONCLUSION ON WEDNESDAY AFTER THE JUDGE DELAYED THE RULING SO THE PARTIES MAY CONSIDER NEW EVIDENCE ON FLUORIDE.
(To read about week 1 of the trial, please see this)
On Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Edward Chen delayed a ruling in the case between the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The FAN is aiming to prove the harms caused by community water fluoridation. The government is defending water fluoridation and seeking a dismissal of the petition by the plaintiffs.
Over the last two weeks, Judge Chen has heard arguments from witnesses with the FAN and EPA. Attorneys with FAN argue that water fluoridation violates the 1970 Toxic Substances Control Act provisions which prohibit the “particular use” of a chemical which has been found to present an unreasonable risk to the general public. Under section 21 of the TSCA citizens are allowed to petition the EPA to regulate or ban individual chemicals.
Judge Chen suggested the FAN file a new petition with the EPA, a suggestion which plaintiffs attorney Michael Connett was not eager to accept given the fact that it has taken four years to get the lawsuit to court. Connett told the court that the plaintiffs might not have the resources to continue this fight for another couple of years and cautioned against delaying a ruling because it would continue to endanger Americans due to ongoing fluoride exposure. The EPA’s attorneys were equally disinterested in a delayed ruling, stating that there is “no way” the EPA could conduct a review within the required 90 days.
Judge Chen said he was only discussing delaying the ruling for another couple of months, not years. Chen also noted that the evidence presented by both sides went “well beyond administrative record, because so much has changed since that petition was filed” in 2016. “Doesn’t it make sense to have the agency take a second look?” Judge Chen asked the attorneys for the EPA and FAN.
Judge Chen noted that the National Academy of Science is expected to publish a study later this year and the National Toxicology Program is working on a review of the literature on fluoride. These new studies, he said, should be considered by the EPA. The judge did acknowledge it is undisputed that fluoride can cause harm to the human brain and is a neurological hazard. The disagreement between EPA and FAN hinges on arguments over the levels at which fluoride causes neurological damage.
Derrick Broze@DBrozeLiveFree#FluorideTrial FAN Connett says it is undisputed that fluoride passes through the placenta and into the fetal brain, due to the absence of a fully developed blood-brain barrier
During the discussions about the potential ruling, Judge Chen admitted that the EPA held the FAN petition on water fluoridation to a standard which is not typical of petitions under TSCA. “The EPA appears to have applied a standard of causation, which from my read of TSCA is not accurate, is not a proper application, not the proper standard,” Chen said to the EPA. This fact was acknowledged by FAN attorney Michael Connett on Tuesday during cross examination of EPA witness Dr. Tala Henry. Under standard TSCA procedure, parties must show an association — not causation — to prove the harm of water fluoridation.
Derrick Broze@DBrozeLiveFree#FluorideTrial FAN Connett asks EPA witness Dr. Henry if its true that the EPA held the plaintiffs to a burden of proof that the EPA has not held single chemical before? Henry, I guess thats true. The EPA has apparently never before held a chemical to a standard of causation
Derrick Broze@DBrozeLiveFree#FluorideTrial FAN Connett asks witness Dr. Chang if she was paid by pesticide company Syngenta to give a presentation, Chang says it is correct that she was retained by Syngenta to testify at an EPA committee
Connett also questioned Dr. Chang about how much she was being paid to defend water fluoridation. Chang stated that Exponent Inc was paying her an estimated $149,000. Dr. Chang was also questioned by Connett about her previous work for Monsanto, Dow Chemical, and other chemical companies and associations. Specifically, Connett called attention to the fact that Dr. Chang had previously stated that despite an association between Monsanto/Bayer’s glyphosate and cancer, she concluded there was no risk. Chang admitted that one peer-reviewer of her study on glyphosate found her analysis “devolved into a laundry list of every possible cause of bias.”
Derrick Broze@DBrozeLiveFree#FluorideTrial FAN Connett asks Dr. Chang how much she billed Exponent Inc for her work. Chang gives a long winded answer, eventually says $149,000
Derrick Broze@DBrozeLiveFree#FluorideTrial FAN Connett asks EPA witness Dr. Chang about her systematic review of agent orange/dioxin, funded by Monsanto. Connett asks Chang if her reviews found that there was insufficient evidence for harm, Chang carefully answers, says the conclusions were more nuanced
Derrick Broze@DBrozeLiveFree#FluorideTrial FAN Connett confirms with witness Chang about the funders of her reviews of chemical hazards in humans while employed by Exponent Inc – Monsanto, Dow Chemical, CropLife, Syngenta, American Chemistry Council, American Petro Institute, Manganese Interest Group
Stay tuned to The Last American Vagabond for updates on this ongoing case.
