Several U.S. cities, towns and counties announced they will stop fluoridating their water in the aftermath of a landmark federal court ruling that found water fluoridation at current levels poses an “unreasonable risk” of reduced IQ in children.

Abilene, Texas; Yorktown and Somers, New York; and the Weber Basin Water Conservancy District in Utah are among those cities and districts that responded quickly to the Sept. 24 ruling by U.S. District Judge Edward Chen.

Chen ruled the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can no longer ignore the risk fluoridation poses to human — especially children’s — health and that the agency must take regulatory action.

The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed in 2017 by Fluoride Action Network, Moms Against Fluoridation, Food & Water Watch and individual parents and children. It followed the publication of a key report by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ National Toxicology Program.

Rick North, board member of the Fluoride Action Network, told The Defender he expects more cities and towns to announce they will end the practice of fluoridation.

“Fluoridation is a house of cards and it’s going to fall,” North said. “It’s only a matter of when. Our job is to make the wind blow.”

The EPA, which can appeal the federal court’s ruling, previously told The Defender it is reviewing the decision and has no comment at this time.

Abilene stops fluoridation pending formal decision by city council

The City of Abilene announced Monday that it will “immediately stop” fluoridating its water supply out of “an abundance of caution,” according to News 4 San Antonio.

In a press release issued Monday, the city said:

“With potential changes to EPA regulations, such as potential adjustments to fluoride levels or the possible introduction of warning labels, the City is pausing fluoridation to ensure compliance with any new health and safety guidelines that may emerge.

“This temporary suspension is being implemented out of an abundance of caution to safeguard public health.”

Abilene City Manager Robert Hanna told The Defender the decision to suspend fluoridation of the city’s water supply is temporary, pending a formal decision by the Abilene City Council on Oct. 3.

“The manager intends to ask the city council whether or not the city should temporarily suspend fluoridation until the EPA makes new regulatory decisions as required by the court, or continue fluoridation until EPA does the same,” Hanna said.

“While we believe the possibility is remote, the EPA could ban the fluoridation of drinking water. It seems prudent to at least ask the elected officials what they want to do. Stopping fluoridation is a simple thing to do, and it is just as easy to start it up again if the council chooses to do so,” Hanna added.

According to Hanna, if the federal court decision is overturned, “the city would start fluoridating again as there would be no impending regulatory change forthcoming.”

He noted that a referendum to fluoridate the city’s drinking water was passed in 2000. “We would return to this practice as originally directed by the voters,” Hanna said.

Most residents of New York town ‘were in favor’ of ending fluoridation

Two New York towns — Yorktown and Somers — also stopped fluoridating their local water supply following the federal court’s decision.

According to Patch, “Yorktown Supervisor Ed Lachterman ordered the suspension of water fluoridation in the town last Thursday,” citing the federal court’s ruling.

Lachterman told The Defender the court’s finding that fluoridation poses “an ‘unreasonable risk’ to children … prompted the decision for me to pull the fluoride and review our town code.”

Yorktown’s Deputy Supervisor Sergio Esposito told The Defender, “Children are our most precious commodity and need to be protected. As adults we have options on how to better add fluoride to our daily lives.”

Town officials will follow new federal guidance as it emerges and “engage with public health experts to make sure that any future decisions on water treatment practices prioritize the safety and health of all residents, especially those identified as potentially more vulnerable to fluoridation risks,” Patch reported.

“We will follow the science and see what happens,” Lachterman said. “There are alternate ways of introducing fluoride to those that need it and there may end up being a better way to control the dosage than drinking water.”

Both Lachterman and Esposito said they received calls from local residents, both in favor and against the suspension of water fluoridation.

“Most of the comments have been positive,” Lachterman said. “It is our responsibility as a town to look to the safety of our children.”

Esposito said he has “had a mixed number of calls” from residents both in favor of the pause and against the pause. “Most were in favor,” Esposito said.

According to Lachterman, the town board will convene today to discuss amending its Water Code “to possibly remove the fluoridation mandate as it currently stands.”

The Town of Somers receives most of its water from the same supply as Yorktown. Robert G. Scorrano, Somers’ town supervisor, told The Defender that Lachterman “made the right decision to remove fluoride from residents’ drinking water.”

“Health and safety will always be our top priority. Given that many Somers residents receive their water from Yorktown, I appreciated Supervisor Lachterman’s initiative in reaching out to discuss and gather feedback from Somers before finalizing his decision,” Scorrano said.

In separate remarks shared with Patch, Scorrano cited “concerns about potential long-term health risks from fluoride exposure” and said that removing fluoride from Somers’ drinking water would “give residents the freedom to choose their own sources of fluoride, ensuring personal control over their health decisions.”

The decision comes after the Northern Westchester Joint Water Works resumed adding fluoride to Yorktown’s water this past summer, Patch reported.

Scorrano told The Defender the response from local residents has been largely positive.

“We have received overwhelmingly positive feedback from Somers residents regarding the removal of fluoride from our water supply. In fact, we have also received calls from individuals in other states expressing their support for this decision.”

He said the town will carefully consider the input from all stakeholders and “make a well-informed decision that prioritizes the health and well-being of all our residents.”

Utah district pauses fluoridation while issue bounces between agencies

The Weber Basin Water Conservancy District, which serves Davis County, Utah, released a statement that it will stop fluoridation in light of the federal ruling, Deseret News reported.

According to the statement:

“Out of an abundance of caution and to prioritize the public’s health above all else, the addition of fluoride to the drinking water supplied by the district in Davis County, Utah, will be paused.

“This pause will allow for the National Toxicology Program (NTP), the Department of Health and Human Services, EPA, and other appropriate federal agencies, to conduct a comprehensive review of the safety and efficacy of water fluoridation in light of the new information.”

Scott Paxman, the water district’s general manager, told Deseret News the district supplies water to every community in Davis County that has opted to receive fluoridated water.

Paxman said the district faces a dilemma because water fluoridation had previously been approved by referendum, and that the issue is being passed from one state agency to another without a final resolution.

According to Deseret News, Nathan Lunstad, director of the Utah drinking water division, said the state is awaiting further guidance from the EPA.

‘No one has to wait for the EPA’

In light of the NTP report and the subsequent federal court ruling, officials in several other cities and communities across the U.S. are facing calls to stop fluoridation.

The Dallas Express reported last month that local activist Regina Imburgia “put the Dallas City Council on notice regarding the dangers of water fluoridation” in an email she sent council members in late August. The email references the NTP report.

“Whether the Dallas City Council takes action or not, the council members’ hands may be forced by the outcome of a federal lawsuit currently pending in the Northern District of California,” the Dallas Express wrote.

And in Buffalo, New York, local attorney James Ostrowski is pushing back against the city’s decision last month to reintroduce fluoride into its water supply. In an interview with WBEN 930 AM, he cited the risks fluoride poses to children’s intelligence and pregnant women.

Experts told The Defender that decisions to reintroduce fluoridation or to impose fluoridation through local referendums are based on flawed science.

Philippe Grandjean, M.D., Ph.D., adjunct professor in environmental health at Harvard University and chair of environmental medicine at the University of Southern Denmark, was an expert witness in the California court case. He told The Defender that advocates for fluoridation, and for referendums to mandate it, are misinformed.

“While I’m in favor of local decisions on drinking water treatment, I’m concerned that agreement to add fluoride has been based on erroneous information that didn’t mention the growing evidence that fluoride can cause toxicity to the developing brain,” Grandjean said.

North noted that, during the California court case, “not once did the EPA’s scientists, who were under oath, or their lawyers claim fluoridation was safe,” despite “hours of testimony” and multiple depositions.

“On the contrary, they acknowledged there were dozens of high-quality studies linking higher fluoride with lower IQs, several at levels in fluoridated water. That alone debunks fluoridation promoters throughout the country who insist it’s been proven safe for everyone,” North said.

Addressing the possibility of an EPA appeal, North said the agency “will most likely do everything they can to delay instituting any meaningful rules” but that this should not dissuade local officials across the U.S. from taking action to halt fluoridation.

“No one has to wait for the EPA,” North said. “It’s time to take matters into your own hands.”